England must let slip the dogs of war

First topic message reminder :

Just as the Irish dug deep into their very psyche at Lansdowne in last season's GS encounter, the English must do the same against the Welsh.

They won't need any reminders and pep-talks as to the meaning to their nation and its people for this game.

And the English must meet this patriotic verve with equal verve and resolve and fire.

The team talks and tactics will be well understood must be understood before they set set foot on the team bus. But the strategy must be positive as we are at home.

In the changing room, Brian Blessed thumps out Shakespeare:
"Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spiritTo his full height.
On, on, you noblest English.Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,And teach them how to war.
And you, good yeoman,Whose limbs were made in England,
show us hereThe mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,Straining upon the start.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this chargeCry
'God for Harry, England, and Saint George

Meanwhile in the stands,

1. Like the Scots - let them wait an extra five minutes before England turn up.
2. Like the Irish play the National Anthem before the teams are introduced
3. Like the Welsh, play their National Anthem as a dirge or too fast
And then (also like the Irish), lets have GSTQ followed by Jerusalem.

At Twickers we want Alfie Boe, Jerusalem, done

I love this stuff. And this directly relates to our Rugby.

The longbow was a Welsh invention. Many of the Archers at Agincourt, Crecy, and many of the other battles across the north of France were Welsh. Not sure its possible to say most, but certainly many. I will ask my Welsh grandmother (she might have been at Agincourt - don't tell her I said that). And the looting and killing of prisoners was usually the second resort to be done if ransom could or would not be paid.

Yes, as said above, Henry V was Lancastrian. But "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" was from Julius Ceaser, if my infirmed memory is still functioning.

Cromwell was an intolerant sorrybastard to one and all, especially to those who didn't share his view of religion or the world. Unfortunately, we have seen many like him in history. I think he was a midfielder for his football team.

The England-Wales match is shaping up nicely. The big, tough, fast Welsh Goliath against the small, weak, slow, and get this - underdog - English David.

I love this stuff.

doctor_grey wrote:I love this stuff. And this directly relates to our Rugby.

The longbow was a Welsh invention. Many of the Archers at Agincourt, Crecy, and many of the other battles across the north of France were Welsh. Not sure its possible to say most, but certainly many. I will ask my Welsh grandmother (she might have been at Agincourt - don't tell her I said that). And the looting and killing of prisoners was usually the second resort to be done if ransom could or would not be paid.

Yes, as said above, Henry V was Lancastrian. But "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" was from Julius Ceaser, if my infirmed memory is still functioning.

Cromwell was an intolerant sorrybastard to one and all, especially to those who didn't share his view of religion or the world. Unfortunately, we have seen many like him in history. I think he was a midfielder for his football team.

The England-Wales match is shaping up nicely. The big, tough, fast Welsh Goliath against the small, weak, slow, and get this - underdog - English David.

I love this stuff.

doctor_grey wrote:The longbow was a Welsh invention.

No it wasn't. The 'longbow' is a relatively modern term for a big bow (mainly used to distinguish between the shorter horsebow). Big bows have been around for a long time in all sorts of places. Really interesting book on the matter is 'Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury (I think).

Wouldn't little chain-mailed St.George v the big bad Dragon be a better...em, historical????... metaphor?

What? There never was a St George in real life? So who killed the dragon then?

HammerofThunor wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:The longbow was a Welsh invention.

No it wasn't. The 'longbow' is a relatively modern term for a big bow (mainly used to distinguish between the shorter horsebow). Big bows have been around for a long time in all sorts of places. Really interesting book on the matter is 'Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury (I think).

Longbows were called longbows in the Hundred years war and wars of the roses in primary sources so its not really a modern term.

The welsh bow from the Edwardian conquest was actually shorter than the classic longbow but using the different grains in the wood to effect the draw was the common factor. The impact of the welsh archers in the conquest and their availability after the 1290s to the English king is the point that the longbow becomes a war winning weapon so I think you can give us that one.

HammerofThunor wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:The longbow was a Welsh invention.

No it wasn't. The 'longbow' is a relatively modern term for a big bow (mainly used to distinguish between the shorter horsebow). Big bows have been around for a long time in all sorts of places. Really interesting book on the matter is 'Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury (I think).

I think it was. We should check our sources. If I recall what I read - today is a day at home so I will check - it was invented in Wales. I don't know where/when the term 'longbow' was first coined, but, if I recall, the Welsh bow was a larger bow with a compound action enabling distance and velocity not attainded previously. Significantly more than the cross bow and the conventional bows of the time.

SecretFly wrote:Wouldn't little chain-mailed St.George v the big bad Dragon be a better...em, historical????... metaphor?

What? There never was a St George in real life? So who killed the dragon then?

Wasn't he from somewhere in the Middle East?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Wouldn't little chain-mailed St.George v the big bad Dragon be a better...em, historical????... metaphor?

What? There never was a St George in real life? So who killed the dragon then?

Wasn't he from somewhere in the Middle East?

yeah martyred by Emperor Diocletian. obviously there was no dragon in the original story.

Do you think the French let slip the Frogs of War?

(Tries to imagine French War Frog...)

When I get home I'll re-read my sources and get back to you. If I'm wrong I'll humbly apologise and expect gracious acceptance. If I'm right it'll be "boo-ya, in your face. Suck it"

what I never understood is why we treat Shakespear as if his written Plays were recorded History?!

For those that like this kind of thing I can do no more than reccommed the book 'Agincourt' by Juliet Barker

When Henry V and his band of brothers defeated the assembled might of French chivalry on a rainy October day in 1415, it was a defining moment in English history. The battle of Agincourt became part of the nation’s self-image. For six centuries it has been celebrated as the triumph of the underdog in the face of overwhelming odds, of discipline and determination over arrogance and egotism, of stout-hearted common men over dissolute aristocrats. But what is the truth behind the battle upon which so many legends have been built?

http://julietbarker.co.uk/books/agincourt.html

lets hope it Rains next Friday eh!

doctor_grey wrote: "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" was from Julius Ceaser, if my infirmed memory is still functioning.

Yep, think it was Mark Anthony's speech in Julius Caeser.

Many of the French prisoners were killed when some naughty French peasants (and I mean that - not in a derogatory way - they were peasants) tried to loot from the English supply wagons during the battle. Henry V was afraid that the prisoners were attempting to escape, re-arm and attack them from behind, so gave the order to kill the prisoners. Read a really good book on Agincourt by Juliet Barker.

damage_13 wrote:what I never understood is why we treat Shakespear as if his written Plays were recorded History?!

For those that like this kind of thing I can do no more than reccommed the book 'Agincourt' by Juliet Barker

When Henry V and his band of brothers defeated the assembled might of French chivalry on a rainy October day in 1415, it was a defining moment in English history. The battle of Agincourt became part of the nation’s self-image. For six centuries it has been celebrated as the triumph of the underdog in the face of overwhelming odds, of discipline and determination over arrogance and egotism, of stout-hearted common men over dissolute aristocrats. But what is the truth behind the battle upon which so many legends have been built?

http://julietbarker.co.uk/books/agincourt.html

lets hope it Rains next Friday eh!

Yeah Ive read that, not a great fan tbh. Peter Reid the Rise and Fall of English supremacy at arms, 1314-1485 is one that I would definitely reccomend.

there were so many Mercs/Nobs with troops coming from all over the French Kingdoms to beat the Anglais that they were still turning away troops a couple of hours into the battle.

TycroesOsprey wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Wouldn't little chain-mailed St.George v the big bad Dragon be a better...em, historical????... metaphor?

What? There never was a St George in real life? So who killed the dragon then?

Wasn't he from somewhere in the Middle East?

yeah martyred by Emperor Diocletian. obviously there was no dragon in the original story.

Oh I know a George existed in history...just had my doubts about the one that killed the dragon, that's all.

And sad indeed to hear the dragon himself was also a myth. ...!

The problem with all ancient history is that the older it gets the more certain we become that it's all fact.

Meanwhile, 40something years down the road you still won't get a straight answer to who shot John F. Kennedy.

Imagine that episode getting the historian treatment four or five hundred years down the line. "J. Edgar Hoover was seen on the grasy knoll on the morning of the shooting, looking distinctly uneasy as he calibrated his rifle sights."

Two things;

1 - Portnoy I agree with gist of this. England need to look inwards to find another gear.

2 - Why does the British EMPIRE have a king/Queen? Surely they should have an Emperor.

HERSH wrote:Maybe we should get Tindall and his horse (Zara) to do the handshakes on the red carpet?

Well there goes my taste in women....i think shes quite fit.....i certainly would...

Queen Victoria did have the title Empress of India. I don't think Kings or Queens are ever too shy in having yet another title added if needed.

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

In short, no. The French prisoners were butchered largely because we were massively outnumbered and with the battlefield being littered with weapons it was deemed a threat that the French prisoners could easily rearm themselves and rejoin the battle from our rear hence they were slaughtered. Whilst a neccessity at the time, the slaughter meant that the English (British) lost out on huge ransoms which they could have secured had the prisoners lived.
Its a myth that most of the archers were welsh. Whilst there were a lot of Welsh archers in the army, not a majority. Young English and Welsh men were instructed in archery with the longbow from childhood which made them far superior and effective to their french counterparts in battle who were armed with a varient of the crossbow which was significantly less accurate and had a far shorter range. That said, it is thought that more men were crushed / drowned in the mud than died as a direct result of the arrows.

The French Crossbows also wouldnt work well in the wet, the Longbowmen could removed their strings to protect them from the rain.

Handshakes or hoofshakes, Hersh?

red_stag wrote:Two things;

1 - Portnoy I agree with gist of this. England need to look inwards to find another gear.

2 - Why does the British EMPIRE have a king/Queen? Surely they should have an Emperor.

The title was King/Queen of the UK (or British Isles and Northern Ireland) and Emperor/ess of (list of colonies) I think. We don't really have an Empire anymore though, basically Gibraltar, the Falklands and an acknowledgment of the past and some reverence of the monarch by certain Commonwealth countries who have a sporting contest with to make ourselves feel better about China and the USA dominating the Olympics. But we do have a rich heritage

GeordieFalcon wrote:

HERSH wrote:Maybe we should get Tindall and his horse (Zara) to do the handshakes on the red carpet?

Well there goes my taste in women....i think shes quite fit.....i certainly would...

Better looking than Tindall, certainly

"That said, it is thought that more men were crushed / drowned in the mud than died as a direct result of the arrows."

And mostly under the weight of their own armour, the description of the armoured men-at-arms/tank charge was terrifying. And that doesn't include the possibility of death by your own side as the armoured horse turning around and retreating the way they came.

The Genoese Crossbow mercs were mostly run over byt the French Cavalry in their mad attempt to close with the English Ranks. The statistics for the battle (given the numerous accounts ) is truly horrifying for the French Kingdoms.

No wonder the English though God and his Angels gave a helping hand

ChequeredJersey wrote:

red_stag wrote:Two things;

1 - Portnoy I agree with gist of this. England need to look inwards to find another gear.

2 - Why does the British EMPIRE have a king/Queen? Surely they should have an Emperor.

The title was King/Queen of the UK (or British Isles and Northern Ireland) and Emperor/ess of (list of colonies) I think. We don't really have an Empire anymore though, basically Gibraltar, the Falklands and an acknowledgment of the past and some reverence of the monarch by certain Commonwealth countries who have a sporting contest with to make ourselves feel better about China and the USA dominating the Olympics. But we do have a rich heritage

Well, I didn't vote for her.

Ironically our best chance of beating the French in Paris would be a similar mix of weather, a long-range projectile attack (kicking game) and the implosion of the French side

munkian wrote:The French Crossbows also wouldnt work well in the wet, the Longbowmen could removed their strings to protect them from the rain.

Exactly. Also, as you suggested, the British camp was attacked and ransacked during the battle. However this was more a case of opportunistic thievery than anything else and the Frenchmen responsible were not involved in the actual battle, nor in the French army.

red_stag wrote:Two things;

1 - Portnoy I agree with gist of this. England need to look inwards to find another gear.

2 - Why does the British EMPIRE have a king/Queen? Surely they should have an Emperor.

Victoria reigned over an Empire. I believe that the soubriquet finally ceased in the fifties.

Old coins british used to carry the legend 'Fid def ind imp' which I was told meant 'by the grace of God -Empriror/ess of India.

I'm old enough to remember the Emipre/Commoneath Games in Cardiff when Prince Chuck was announced that he was going to be pronounced Prince of Wales.

I'm pretty certain that by the time that the Games were held in Meadowbank (Edinburgh) they were the Commonwealth Games.

miteyironpaw wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

red_stag wrote:Two things;

1 - Portnoy I agree with gist of this. England need to look inwards to find another gear.

2 - Why does the British EMPIRE have a king/Queen? Surely they should have an Emperor.

The title was King/Queen of the UK (or British Isles and Northern Ireland) and Emperor/ess of (list of colonies) I think. We don't really have an Empire anymore though, basically Gibraltar, the Falklands and an acknowledgment of the past and some reverence of the monarch by certain Commonwealth countries who have a sporting contest with to make ourselves feel better about China and the USA dominating the Olympics. But we do have a rich heritage

Well, I didn't vote for her.

I think that's pretty much how a monarch/Emperor works

Just checked there is only 1 country in the world currently that has an Emperor.

Japan?

Central African Republic?

damngoodOvalball wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

In short, no. The French prisoners were butchered largely because we were massively outnumbered and with the battlefield being littered with weapons it was deemed a threat that the French prisoners could easily rearm themselves and rejoin the battle from our rear hence they were slaughtered. Whilst a neccessity at the time, the slaughter meant that the English (British) lost out on huge ransoms which they could have secured had the prisoners lived.
Its a myth that most of the archers were welsh. Whilst there were a lot of Welsh archers in the army, not a majority. Young English and Welsh men were instructed in archery with the longbow from childhood which made them far superior and effective to their french counterparts in battle who were armed with a varient of the crossbow which was significantly less accurate and had a far shorter range. That said, it is thought that more men were crushed / drowned in the mud than died as a direct result of the arrows.

Not sure I agree with the last but oval, Theres a guy at Southampton uni who has done his doctorate on the wlesh medieval soldier and he talks a lot about the myth of the welsh archer. The problem is that the muster rolls dont really go into origin of a lot of the people hired for the war. Looking at the names doesnt give an accurate picture not least because the welsh didnt get around to surnames until much later than teh English. So that means there are 8 jones' as opposed to 24 Smiths in teh muster rolls, but 16 Forte, Forte not a welsh name but they were all from Llanstephan so it shows that the name evidence is confusing. Until the 1450s its difficult to say what the national origin of the soldiers was with any certainty. However the circumstatial evidence is quite good. Henry v victory over Owain Glyndwr after the battle of Shrewsbury gave him access to troops that were battle hardned and until recently had been wiping out English armies with the longvow. We also know that the wars of the roses were fought with Wales as the recruiting ground for the different sides. After the penal laws were enacted the only way for any welshman to progress was in the armies of the king. That was true in 1450 as we have the accounts of where people were hired in teh court records so I dont really see a reason for it not being true in 1415.

SecretFly wrote:The problem with all ancient history is that the older it gets the more certain we become that it's all fact.

Meanwhile, 40something years down the road you still won't get a straight answer to who shot John F. Kennedy.

Imagine that episode getting the historian treatment four or five hundred years down the line. "J. Edgar Hoover was seen on the grasy knoll on the morning of the shooting, looking distinctly uneasy as he calibrated his rifle sights."

Surely a large chap, strolling around a grassy knoll in a flowery dress would have stood out a bit too much in such circumstances? Also J Edgar having to calibrate his own rifle sights is a recipe for a broken fingernail...

Apologies - yes it is Japan.

Just one unusual point about the longbow was the last time one was used in battle was in the retreat to Dunkirk in 1940. An English officer who was a competition bowman decided to have a pop at a couple of German scouts.

TycroesOsprey wrote:Just one unusual point about the longbow was the last time one was used in battle was in the retreat to Dunkirk in 1940. An English officer who was a competition bowman decided to have a pop at a couple of German scouts.

Did he get them? Was his Dad Welsh?

yeah he got them and no he wasnt welsh. Jack Churchill, ended up in the commandos just wikid him.

The Germans who found the arrow-ridden corpses must have freaked out

TycroesOsprey wrote:

damngoodOvalball wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

In short, no. The French prisoners were butchered largely because we were massively outnumbered and with the battlefield being littered with weapons it was deemed a threat that the French prisoners could easily rearm themselves and rejoin the battle from our rear hence they were slaughtered. Whilst a neccessity at the time, the slaughter meant that the English (British) lost out on huge ransoms which they could have secured had the prisoners lived.
Its a myth that most of the archers were welsh. Whilst there were a lot of Welsh archers in the army, not a majority. Young English and Welsh men were instructed in archery with the longbow from childhood which made them far superior and effective to their french counterparts in battle who were armed with a varient of the crossbow which was significantly less accurate and had a far shorter range. That said, it is thought that more men were crushed / drowned in the mud than died as a direct result of the arrows.

Not sure I agree with the last but oval, Theres a guy at Southampton uni who has done his doctorate on the wlesh medieval soldier and he talks a lot about the myth of the welsh archer. The problem is that the muster rolls dont really go into origin of a lot of the people hired for the war. Looking at the names doesnt give an accurate picture not least because the welsh didnt get around to surnames until much later than teh English. So that means there are 8 jones' as opposed to 24 Smiths in teh muster rolls, but 16 Forte, Forte not a welsh name but they were all from Llanstephan so it shows that the name evidence is confusing. Until the 1450s its difficult to say what the national origin of the soldiers was with any certainty. However the circumstatial evidence is quite good. Henry v victory over Owain Glyndwr after the battle of Shrewsbury gave him access to troops that were battle hardned and until recently had been wiping out English armies with the longvow. We also know that the wars of the roses were fought with Wales as the recruiting ground for the different sides. After the penal laws were enacted the only way for any welshman to progress was in the armies of the king. That was true in 1450 as we have the accounts of where people were hired in teh court records so I dont really see a reason for it not being true in 1415.

Fair enough Tycroes, I have only read a couple of books related to Agincourt so obviously this Southhampton boffin is going to be a tad more clued up than I am! I was aware that the Welsh archerss had formed the blueprint for the tactics employed by the British army against france, based on their battles against the English. By the time of Agincourt, Every village in Wales and the south of England were churning out skilled archers

damngoodOvalball wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

damngoodOvalball wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

In short, no. The French prisoners were butchered largely because we were massively outnumbered and with the battlefield being littered with weapons it was deemed a threat that the French prisoners could easily rearm themselves and rejoin the battle from our rear hence they were slaughtered. Whilst a neccessity at the time, the slaughter meant that the English (British) lost out on huge ransoms which they could have secured had the prisoners lived.
Its a myth that most of the archers were welsh. Whilst there were a lot of Welsh archers in the army, not a majority. Young English and Welsh men were instructed in archery with the longbow from childhood which made them far superior and effective to their french counterparts in battle who were armed with a varient of the crossbow which was significantly less accurate and had a far shorter range. That said, it is thought that more men were crushed / drowned in the mud than died as a direct result of the arrows.

Not sure I agree with the last but oval, Theres a guy at Southampton uni who has done his doctorate on the wlesh medieval soldier and he talks a lot about the myth of the welsh archer. The problem is that the muster rolls dont really go into origin of a lot of the people hired for the war. Looking at the names doesnt give an accurate picture not least because the welsh didnt get around to surnames until much later than teh English. So that means there are 8 jones' as opposed to 24 Smiths in teh muster rolls, but 16 Forte, Forte not a welsh name but they were all from Llanstephan so it shows that the name evidence is confusing. Until the 1450s its difficult to say what the national origin of the soldiers was with any certainty. However the circumstatial evidence is quite good. Henry v victory over Owain Glyndwr after the battle of Shrewsbury gave him access to troops that were battle hardned and until recently had been wiping out English armies with the longvow. We also know that the wars of the roses were fought with Wales as the recruiting ground for the different sides. After the penal laws were enacted the only way for any welshman to progress was in the armies of the king. That was true in 1450 as we have the accounts of where people were hired in teh court records so I dont really see a reason for it not being true in 1415.

Fair enough Tycroes, I have only read a couple of books related to Agincourt so obviously this Southhampton boffin is going to be a tad more clued up than I am! I was aware that the Welsh archerss had formed the blueprint for the tactics employed by the British army against france, based on their battles against the English. By the time of Agincourt, Every village in Wales and the south of England were churning out skilled archers

The guy in Southampton actually agrees with you that it was a myth, I havent read his theses yet so dont know what he is basing it on. My knowledge is all from the wars of the roses 50 years later so there could well be good evidence I havent seen.

The common in Llantrisant was given to the men of the town who were archers in the army to say thanks for beating the French. I think it was linked to the battle of Crecy rather than Agincourt.

It is true that prisoners were killed by the archers as they would have been from the lowest standing in the army at the time. Knights wouldnt have slit the throat of a captured opponent

SafeAsMilk wrote:We need to call up Beowulf Twelvetrees to fight off Grendel North.

'My name is Billy and I am here to tackle your monster....'

ChequeredJersey wrote:The Germans who found the arrow-ridden corpses must have freaked out

Or peed themselves laughing at how much easier conquering England might be than the originally thought. Interesting tactic. Much like the way England have held back so much weaponry in the early stages of this years 6N.

ChequeredJersey wrote:The Germans who found the arrow-ridden corpses must have freaked out

Or peed themselves laughing at how much easier conquering England might be than the originally thought. Interesting tactic. Much like the way England have held back so much weaponry in the early stages of this years 6N.

Read the wiki on Jack Churchill - I think it actually tops my previous favourite story of British madmen in WWII - which was Walter Cowan

Jack Chirchill - I wonder what his most lethal bit of kit was that he carried into battle - the bow the claymore or the bagpipes...

miteyironpaw wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:The Germans who found the arrow-ridden corpses must have freaked out

Or peed themselves laughing at how much easier conquering England might be than the originally thought. Interesting tactic. Much like the way England have held back so much weaponry in the early stages of this years 6N.

Awww, he's sooooo cute !

This is what the 6 nations is all about: realising your nationalistic furvor is actually completely ridiculous having been well and truly undermined by centuries of crossbreeding and inbreeding

Ah well....I love my older brother, but I would cut my own balls off rather than have him beat me in an arm wrestle....we're a very odd species