Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Battle of Shrewsbury - wow
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 1st July 2009
It was fought in england just before Agincourt between 2 British armies using the longbow
thousands were probably killed by by the longbow - but amazingly the longbow wasnt the reason for the outcome of the battle - perhaps because they both ran out of arrows at the same time and the real battle - the slaughter of the opposing men at arms took over ??
it was one of the bloodiest battles fought on english soil - 10000 - 15000 dead
now why is it almost unknown - i am a history lover but only heard about it 2 weeks ago when i read about it via a wiki link
as an experiment i asked my kids and workmates about it - no one even sniffed it - why ??
was it that unimportant - obviously not - henry V was in there
so why not
st -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
The Battle of Shrewsbury has always been there in the history books, for anybody who wants to read about it....
You can even read about it in SHakespeare's play on Henry IV. By the way, the king at Shrewsbury was Henry IV, who was was the father of Henry V. I assume you know the background to the battle, about Henry Bolingbroke's usurpation of the throne from Richard II, and how he had to spend most of his reign suppression rebellions, of which Shrewsbury was one. Henry Hotspur was the son of Northumberland, and he was a major player in the rebellion, supported by Owen Glendower from Wales.
There are lots of battles in English history that are not taught in school history. The main focus in that period of history at school tends to be the Tudors, so it's probably not fair to ask your kids and workmates about the battle of Shrewsbury....
Only history aficionadoes would know anything about it. -
Message 3
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Hi stalteriisok
You hint at the main reason why the battle of Shrewsbury is largely ignored in popular history, the more glamorous battle of Agincourt took place only 12 years later and has become one of the most famous battles of the time, greatly over shadowing Shrewsbury and other contemporary battles.
Other reasons for the apparent lack of interest in the battle lays with it being part of a long running family dispute between the Percy’s and King Henry 1V, later these family arguments would lead to the War of the Roses and leave the Battles of Shrewsbury and Radcote Bridge to be dismissed as pre fight posturing before the big battles fought later. Of course a main reason is also the fact that Hotspur lost the battle, if he had won then Shrewsbury would be up there with Bosworth Field on the list of significant battles.
The battle of Shrewsbury is interesting because of the involvement of the Prince of Wales, the future King Henry V, and his obvious outstanding ability as a commander and leader of men. It was his conduct during the battle that probably led to a Royal victory and defeat and death for Hotspur.
It was certainly a hard fought battle with high casualties on both sides, some say that the King lost more men in victory than the defeated rebels, a rare event in medieval warfare. But I am not sure that the longbow was in any way a decisive weapon in the battle, just as during the following Wars of the Roses the presence of longbows on both sides meant that they were largely ineffective.
Does anybody agree that the medieval longbow is probably the most over hyped weapon of all time? -
Message 4
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
I can't claim to be anything of an expert on weaponry, but from what I have read the longbow does seem to get considerable attention!
-
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
"...Does anybody agree that the medieval longbow is probably the most over hyped weapon of all time?..."
Probably the most romanticised weapon.
It is imposible to claim it is insignificant because the battle of Shrewsbury was not settled by it. Both sides used it, so it was not the decider. Most battles are settled by weight of numbers. Yes, yes, I know,there are exceptions aplenty to that. Tactical genius also matters.
Like all weapons, it is usage that counts. At Agincourt, the conditions were perfect. And, because of Agincourt, it became a symbol of English martial success.
Never do down a nation's symbols. -
Message 6
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Each weapon had its place in history, reading of the Longbow its claimed it could penetrate 4 inches of solid oak. Also more effective up to 100 yards than the American M1 WW2 rifle, hitting power thus killing power. Various gun clubs etc carry out tests of weapons. The coat of chain armour was tested using various ancient weapons and faired poorly. Granted, controlled tests may turn out differently under actual battle conditions.
Perhaps not generally known, but the British .303 rim type round was a poor choice for automatic weapons as was prone to jam, (incorrect magazine loading). Britain had so much invested in the rim type that it was decided to continue production even when many armies went to automatics. During WW2 British soldiers got killed because of improperly loaded magazines, rim under rim (the following round) the correct way as the other way would jam. -
Message 7
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
hi shifan/englishvote
i do know the background to the battle - but only 2 weeks ago!!
yes only afficienardoes(sp) would know but why -cos it :-
1 involved Henty V who nearly died
2 Involved Harry hotspur - a shakespeare hero
3 was possibly the most bloody battle on english soil
4 involved a longbow on longbow battle - which amazingly did nothing to decide the outcome of the battle - just gave it a good starting point for thr slaughter that followed
the longbow may have been overrated - but at 3 significant battles - crecy poittiers and agincourt it won the day
its interseting that shrewsbury is unknown - what are the others ??
st -
Message 8
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
Hi petaluma
I think that there is a lot of nonsense talked about the longbow.
The basic performance of any bow and arrow are determined by the person using it. The energy put into it cannot exceed the strength of a human, this applies to a long bow and also the similarly hyped composite bow, or re-curve bow. This is basic physics that means that any arrow can only have the kinetic energy applied to it by the bow, and the bow is human powered.
While any firearm such as the US M1or even a 17th century musket can project a bullet with the energy supplied by the explosion of a volatile compound such as gunpowder or cordite. No human that ever lived could impart into a bow the energy potential of a normal rifle bullet.
Reading accounts of medieval battles it is obvious that armoured troops were pretty immune to any arrows delivered by any bows. But of course there were very few fully armoured troops compared to the majority of unarmoured or partially armoured men. Horses suffered badly from arrows and a fallen horse could bring down even the best armoured knight.
The longbow was a good weapon, it was effective, cheap and reliable. It could out shot a crossbow in terms of rate of fire. The success of English armies during the 100 years war was not down to the longbow alone, but to good leaders and quality troops. When the leadership was lacking in ability the results of battles could not determined by just the use of longbows. -
Message 9
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
Hi stalteriisok,
The bloodiest battle fought on British soil was Towton Moor, 1461, during the Wars of the Roses - an estimated 28,000 dead/casualties!
And wasn't Prince Henry hit in the face by an arrow during the Battle of Shrewsbury? The arrow was removed and the wound filled with honey; this is why portraits of him, when King Henry V, are all painted from the side view, the side that was not disfigured. -
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
The arrow was removed and the wound filled with honeyÌý
That must have stung like the billy-oh. But probably saved his life. -
Message 11
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
hi toffee
just read about towton - unbelievable - another slaughter i had never heard of !!
i was at a grammar school for 6 years yet there are these huge gaps of english warfare and history i have never heard of - why
this was in the days when battles were taught - nowadays they quite rightly learn how the ordinary people lived
my biggest suprise was learning about the mongols - how near were they from dominating europe and how much did we get taught about them ??
st -
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
Hello stalteriisok
I have to say that I was fortunate to attend schools where mediaeval history was very well covered. For example at my junior school (in England) we not only did English mediaeval history but also Scottish medieval history as well. It was only later in my life that I realised how unusual this was and that even many people in Scotland didn't get to study Scottish history.
I also remember that at secondary school we put on the Shakespeare play 'Richard III' and this instilled in me an undying fascination with the 15th Century. Reading Shakespeare's other history plays and also reading the orthodox history behind the stories was (for me) an enjoyable supplementary excercise to the set schoolwork. So Shrewsbury, Towton, Tewkesbury, St Albans, Mortimer's Cross, Wakefield and Bosworth etc are all very familiar to me.
Strangely my school's curriculum then skipped from the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 all the way to the Battle of Waterloo 1815 when (after a gap of 330 years) history suddenly started all over again. So we got no Tudors, no Stuarts and no 18th Century Hanoverians. I had to fill those gaps in independently later in life.
You're right about the Mongols. I suppose the reason we don't hear much about them is that they didn't get here. I'm pretty sure, however, that they're taught about in Russia, Poland and Germany etc. It is strange, though, to think that while Henry III was reigning in England, then the Khanate of the Golden Horde was only 490 miles away east of Dover.
If you're able to get hold of a copy then there is an excellent documentary series about the Mongols called 'Storm From The East'. It was jointly produced by the Â鶹ԼÅÄ and a Japanese television company in 1993 and is well worth watching. -
Message 13
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
Re: msg 9.
I wonder whether that was the incident when the doctors had to have a special pair of iron tongs manufactured in a hurry so that they could withdraw the arrowhead?
I suppose all schools can do is impart a love of history in the pupil so that he/she can fill in the inevitable gaps later in their lives. In my case my mother had very readable books in the bookcase as my siblings and I grew up, and in my primary school years I was fortunate in having an inspiring lady teacher who gave us the story of The White Ship tragedy to start us off.
That was good advice from Vizzer regarding the attack by the Mongols. Had Genghis Khan not passed away when he did, the history of Europe might have been very different, for his forces had been on the point of winning. -
Message 14
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Hi stalteriisok,
I don’t know how history was taught in British schools, but here in New Zealand in Year 13 we started with the Stuarts, then went back to the Tudors, did a bit of constitutional history of the Pitts and Walpole etc, and a quick flight to the early settlement days of the USA.
I didn’t do history before this, but think Year 12 concentrated on the Unification of Italy and pre-WW1 stuff, and perhaps some New Zealand history. At university we studied Huns, Visigoths, etc. Medieval times did get a little neglected, so I too have not heard of the Battle of Shrewsbury and Tewkesbury and Towton and others till recently. Even the Battle of Bosworth Field was not covered at school, but of course crops up pretty quickly. My father, who liked history but left school aged 12, used to give me little quizzes of capital cities and when was the battle of... Mostly it was Agincourt, Crecy, Waterloo, Hastings, Bannockburn, Trafalgar. Nothing much else and nothing from WWII where he was a soldier.
But what I really meant to say was that I have a library book out at the moment called the Daily Telegraph Guide to Britain’s Military Heritage by Mark Adkin and there are just 100s of battleplaces in Britain. Just a quick sample gives Alford, Boroughbridge, Cropredy Bridge, Evesham, Glenshiel, Hopton Heath, Kilsyth, Lansdown Hill, Marston Moor, Mortimer’s Cross, Newbury, Roslin, St Albans, and Worchester.
It’s hard to keep up.
(And though there were battles in NZ the names of individual ones just are not common knowledge at all.)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
I wonder whether that was the incident when the doctors had to have a special pair of iron tongs manufactured in a hurry so that they could withdraw the arrowhead?Ìý
Yes, in fact it was John Bradmore, a pardoned counterfeieter, who had turned to surgery and specialised in battlefield wounds to whom the king's physicians turned when all else had failed.
Henry, then 16yo Prince Hal, had been struck in the cheek by an arrow early on in the battle. He had broken off the wooden stave but the metal arrowhead remained embedded in his cheekbone. Bradmore managed to extract it the following way:
"He devised a small pair of tongs the width of the arrowhead with a screw-like thread at the end of each arm and a separate screw mechanism
running through the centre. The wound had to be enlarged and deepened before the tongs could be inserted... and this was done by means of a series of increasingly large and long probes made from
"the pith of old elder, well dried and well stitched in purified linen cloth... [and] infused with rose honey."
When Bradmore judged that he had reached the bottom of the wound, he introduced the tongs at the same angle as the arrow had entered, placed the screw in the centre and manoeuvered the instrument into the socket of the
arrowhead. Then, "
by moving it to and fro, little by little (with the help of God) I extracted the arrowhead."
He cleansed the wound by washing it out with white wine and placed into it new probes made of wads of flax soaked in a cleansing ointment which he had prepared from an unlikely combination of bread sops, barley, honey and
turpentine oil. These he replaced every two days with shorter wads until, on the twentieth day, he was able to announce with justified pride that
"the wound was perfectly well cleansed."
A final application of "dark ointment" to regenerate the flesh completed the process."
(From Juliet Barker's "Agincourt")
Bradmore later went on to write ine of the first surgical textbooks based on his experiences.
The Percys, who were in rebellion against Henry IV, used a company of Welsh archers who almost turned the course of the battle and who may have been partially responsible for the high level of casualties. This may have given Henry the idea for his successful use of archers at the Battle of Agincourt 12 years later.
The wound would almost certainly have left a scar on Henry's face and this may be the reason that the most famous portraits are, unusually for a mediaeval king, all in profile, showing only his "good" side as this may have made Henry particularly sensitive about his appearance.
Shrewsbury figures in Shakespeare's "Henry IV Pt.1" where Henry kills Hotspur, the younger Percy, but Falstaff claims the credit after delivering his "What is honour?" soliloquy and then dragging the corpse offstage, traditionally on his back feet upwards, a test of trust for any actor playing Hotspur. -
Message 16
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
A great answer. Thank you.
-
Message 17
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
stalteriisk,
You may be interested to hear that Henry IV is also credited with being the first monarch to burn religious heretics, a process that would thereafter run and run. -
Message 18
Posted by toffee142 (U12031649) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
"This may have given Henry the idea for his successful use of archers at the Battle of Agincourt 12 years later."
Hi Allan D,
The battle that highlighted the awesome power of the longbow was Halidon Hill, 1333, against the Scots, who had nothing to match it. They lost about 4000 casualties compared to the English, who because they did not break formation, sufferred very lightly indeed. -
Message 19
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
"the wound was perfectly well cleansed."Ìý
This would expose the popular held belief that human understanding of antiseptic surgery only developed in the 19th century with Joseph Lister. I suspect that this popular misconception has a grain of truth in it in that for ordinary people conditions were generally unhygienic right up until advent of microbiology (also in the 19th century). Kings and princes and other wealthy and powerful people, of course, could afford the best medical treatments available throughout the ages. -
Message 20
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
Hi Allen D
An interesting if rather grisly account of Henry’s wound.
But I would just like to question your comments about Welsh archers.
The Percys, who were in rebellion against Henry IV, used a company of Welsh archers who almost turned the course of the battle and who may have been partially responsible for the high level of casualties. This may have given Henry the idea for his successful use of archers at the Battle of Agincourt 12 years later.
Ìý
Welsh archers and English longbows had been in use for centuries before the Battle of Shrewsbury.
It is probable that the longbow came into use in Britain before the 12th century in southern Wales, but it also possible that it was adopted from the Saxons much earlier.
Certainly by the 14th century it was in widespread use in the English armies of the time, whether in the hands of Welshmen or more numerous English archers.
It featured in the battles of Bannockburn in 1314 and Dupplin Muir in 1332, both against the Scots. As toffee142 has already mentioned it was the battle of Halidon Hill in 1333 where Edward 111 used the famous wedge shape formation of longbow men and men at arms which introduced the deployment of archers that was to be so successful at Crecy in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415.
The employment of thousands of well trained longbow archers in English armies from the start of the 14th century onwards gave them a potentially powerful weapon. But faced with a similarly equipped enemy, such as at Shrewsbury and most of the battles of the War of the Roses its effect rarely decided the battle. -
Message 21
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
hi vizzer
"Storm from the East" whixh i watched with amazement was the first time i had heard of the mongols (apart from the film ghengis khan)
it was a real eye opener - tribal armies destroyed the cream of european cavalry with ease = only the death of a khan saved western europe
got the book and read the bit where the mongols had fought the islamic forces and were one battle away from destroying islam completely until the death of another khan
i did - year by year
bronze age - iron age - barbarian expansions
saxon britain
bits of medieval britain
civil war
and to really get me interested in my 2 o level years - British constitutional history 1830 - 1914 - wow
as u can imagine - there was all sorts of things going on all over the world and i was learing about cardwells army reforms and the repeal of the corn laws
yes u may say we have to know about our history - but as a 16 year old how did that get me interested in history lol
give me shrewsbury any day - blood and guts lol
st -
Message 22
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 13th July 2009
hi stalteriisok
just been reading more around the Battle of Legnica 1241 and it seems that this Mongol (or Tartar) scare made very little impression in Western Europe.
For example the kings of France and England (Louis IX and Henry III respectively) seemed oblivious to the threat and just continued their relatively petty squabbles over Poitou etc while Simon de Montfort (6th Earl of Leicester) was out of England and seemed more interested in crusading in Syria than any thing else. Henry III's son, Edward Longshanks, was a 1-year-old babe in arms at the time of the Battle of Legnica.
One repercussion of the Mongol sweep westward, however, was the displacement of the Quarezmian rulers of Persia who subsequently were pushed westwards and then themselves attacked Palestine and Egypt. Ironically this did provoke a reaction in Western Europe with Louis IX of France then launching the Seventh Crusade. -
Message 23
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Wasn't the battle of Shrewsbury part of the tripartite alliance of Glyndwr, Percy and Mortimer. The victors plan involving the triple parting of the realm. To Glyndwr, Wales and the Marches, Percy the North and Mortimer the rest
Percy's defeat one of the key reasons for the eventual failure of the Welsh War of Independance -
Message 24
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Surely one of the keys to the success of the longbow was that English men had to exercise with it every Sunday, so that there were a large number of trained longbowmen? (the longbows from the Mary Rose are beyond most modern bowmen to draw).
-
Message 25
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
vizzer
yes indeed the slaughter going on in the east didnt make a ripple in the petty squabbles going on in western europe - even the battle of mohi seems to be ignored especially in the history that i was taught
barbarian light cavalry destroyed european heavy cavalry without a pause - the mongol composite bow was apparently the match of the english longbow - at 30 mph a bit more mobile as well
Urnungal
dont agree - the law to train with longbows was only passed towards the end of the era (to stop everyone playing footie lol) around 1363
the success of the longbow was that england somehow had a HUGE reserve of archers who had been training since childhood with a bow - and on reaching puberty could draw the huge warbow
no one can explain why its only us who had this weapon
training on a sunday for 2 hours couldnt do it !!
st -
Message 26
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 15th July 2009
dont agree - the law to train with longbows was only passed towards the end of the era (to stop everyone playing footie lol) around 1363
All other Sunday sports were banned during the reign of Edward I.
He died in 1307. -
Message 27
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
wonder when the longbow was first used with its later devestating effect (domestic or foreign warfare) ???
-
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
Certainly Edward I was convinced of its efficacy (hence his legislation) during his campaigns in Wales.
-
Message 29
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 17th July 2009
wasnt it used against the English columns ??
-
Message 30
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 17th July 2009
Indeed.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.