The History of the English Moores image
William the Conqueror

The story of the de la Mores and Mares of England begins with William the conqueror of Normandy. Amongst William's army included Guillaume de la Mare, Hugue de la Mare, Thomas de More, Richard de la More and S. More to retake the throne of England, in which he felt cheated out by Harold Godwinson. The Saxon force meet the Norman army at the battle of Hasting, in which it was the only battle to be fought by the Saxons and Normandy forces. Sir Edward Mores who was knight by King Henry VII after the battle of Stoke field during the wars of the roses.

The Battle of Hasting

Many of the primary accounts contradict each other at times, it is impossible to provide a description of the battle that is beyond dispute. The only undisputed facts are that the fighting began at 9 am on Saturday 14 October 1066 and that the battle lasted until dusk. Sunset on the day of the battle was at 4:54 pm, with the battlefield mostly dark by 5:54 pm and in full darkness by 6:24 pm. Moonrise that night was not until 11:12 pm, so once the sun set, there was little light on the battlefield. William of Jumieges reports that Duke William kept his army armed and ready against a surprise night attack for the entire night before.

The battle took place 7 miles (11 km) north of Hastings at the present-day town of battle, between two hills – Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south. The area was heavily wooded, with a marsh nearby. The name traditionally given to the battle is unusual – there were several settlements much closer to the battlefield than Hastings. The Anglo- Saxon chronicle called it the battle "at the hoary apple tree". Within 40 years, the battle was also known as "Senlac", a Norman French adaptation of the Old English word "Sandlacu", which means "sandy water".

This may have been the name of the stream that crosses the battlefield. The battle was already being referred to as "bellum Hasestingas" or "Battle of Hastings" by 1087, in the doomsday book. Sunrise was at 6:48 am that morning, and reports of the day record that it was unusually bright. The weather conditions are not recorded. The route that the English army took to the battlefield is not known precisely. Several roads are possible: one, an old Roman road that ran from Rochester to Hastings has long been favored because of a large coin hoard found nearby in 1876. Another possibility is a Roman road between London and Lewes and then over local tracks to the battlefield. Some accounts of the battle indicate that the Normans advanced from Hastings to the battlefield, but the contemporary account of William of Jumieges places the Normans at the site of the battle the night before.

Most historians incline towards the former view, but M. K. Lawson argues that William of Jumieges's account is correct. Most recent historians conclude that Harold's forces deployed in a small, dense formation around the top of Caldbec Hill, with their flanks protected by woods and a stream and marshy ground in front of them. Lawson points out the possibility that the English line was a bit longer and extended enough to anchor on one of the streams nearby. The English formed a shield wall, with the front ranks holding their shields close together or even overlapping to provide protection from attack. More is known about the Norman deployment.

Duke William appears to have arranged his forces in three groups, or "battles", which roughly corresponded to their origins. The left units were the Bretons, along with those from Anjou, Poitou and Maine. This division was led by Alan the Red, a relative of the Breton count. The center was held by the Normans, under the direct command of the duke and with many of his relatives and kinsmen grouped around the ducal party.
The final division on the right consisted of the Frenchmen, along with some men from Picardy, Boulogne, and Flanders. The right was commanded by William Fitzosbern and Count Eustace II of Boulogne. The front lines were archers with a line of foot soldiers armed with spears behind. There were probably a few crossbowmen and slingers in with the archers.

The cavalry was held in reserve, and a small group of clergymen and servants situated at the base of Telham Hill was not expected to take part in the fighting. William's disposition of his forces implies that he planned to open the battle with archers in the front rank weakening the enemy with arrows, followed by infantry who would engage in close combat. The infantry would create openings in the English lines that could be exploited by a cavalry charge to break through the English forces and pursue the fleeing soldiers. The battle opened with the Norman archers shooting uphill at the English shield wall, to little effect. The uphill angle meant that the arrows either bounced off the shields of the English or overshot their targets and flew over the top of the hill.

The lack of English archers hampered the Norman archers, as there were few English arrows to be gathered up and reused. After the attack from the archers, William sent the spearmen forward to attack the English. They were met with a barrage of missiles, not arrows but spears, axes and stones. The infantry was unable to force openings in the shield wall, and the cavalry advanced in support. The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left. A rumor started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion.

The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive. The duke then led a counterattack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed. It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous. Wace relates that Harold ordered his men to stay in their formations but no other account gives this detail. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the death of Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine occurring just before the fight around the hillock.

This may mean that the two brothers led the pursuit. The Carmen de Hasting Proelio relates a different story for the death of Gyrth, stating that the duke slew Harold's brother in combat, perhaps thinking that Gyrth was Harold. William of Poitiers states that the bodies of Gyrth and Leofwine were found near Harold's, implying that they died late in the battle. It is possible that if the two brothers died early in the fighting their bodies were taken to Harold, thus accounting for their being found near his body after the battle. The military historian Peter Marren speculates that if Gyrth and Leofwine died early in the battle, that may have influenced Harold to stand and fight to the end.

A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably have been needed. William may have also needed time to implement a new strategy, which may have been inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and then draw the English into more pursuits, breaks in the English line might form. William of Poitiers says the tactic was used twice. Although arguments have been made that the chroniclers' accounts of this tactic were meant to excuse the flight of the Norman troops from battle, this is unlikely as the earlier flight was not glossed over. It was a tactic used by other Norman armies during the period. Some historians have argued that the story of the use of feigned flight as a deliberate tactic was invented after the battle; most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.

Although the feigned flights did not break the lines, they probably thinned out the housecarls in the English shield wall. The housecarls were replaced with members of the fyrd, and the shield wall held. Archers appear to have been used again before and during an assault by the cavalry and infantry led by the duke. Although 12th-century sources state that the archers were ordered to shoot at a high angle to shoot over the front of the shield wall, there is no trace of such an action in the more contemporary accounts. It is not known how many assaults were launched against the English lines, but some sources record various actions by both Normans and Englishmen that took place during the afternoon's fighting. The Carmen claims that Duke William had two horses killed under him during the fighting, but William of Poitiers's account states that it was three.

Harold appears to have died late in the battle, although accounts in the various sources are contradictory. William of Poitiers only mentions his death, without giving any details on how it occurred. The Tapestry is not helpful, as it shows a figure holding an arrow sticking out of his eye next to a falling fighter being hit with a sword. Over both figures is a statement "Here King Harold has been killed". It is not clear which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant. The earliest written mention of the traditional account of Harold dying from an arrow to the eye dates to the 1080s from a history of the Normans written by an Italian monk, Amatus of Montecassino.

William of Malmesbury stated that Harold died from an arrow to the eye that went into the brain, and that a knight wounded Harold at the same time. Wace repeats the arrow-to-the-eye account. The Carmen states that Duke William killed Harold, but this is unlikely, as such a feat would have been recorded elsewhere. The account of William of Jumieges is even more unlikely, as it has Harold dying in the morning, during the first fighting. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that no one knew who killed Harold, as it happened in the press of battle.

A modern biographer of Harold, Ian Walker, states that Harold probably died from an arrow in the eye, although he also says it is possible that Harold was struck down by a Norman knight while mortally wounded in the eye. Another biographer of Harold, Peter Rex, after discussing the various accounts, concludes that it is not possible to declare how Harold died. Harold's death left the English forces leaderless, and they began to collapse. Many of them fled, but the soldiers of the royal household gathered around Harold's body and fought to the end. The Normans began to pursue the fleeing troops, and except for a rearguard action at a site known as the "Malfosse", the battle was over. Exactly what happened at the Malfosse, or "Evil Ditch", and where it took place, is unclear. It occurred at a small fortification or set of trenches where some Englishmen rallied and seriously wounded Eustace of Boulogne before being destroyed by Duke William. Harold's defeat was probably due to several circumstances.

One was the need to defend against two almost simultaneous invasions. The fact that Harold had dismissed his forces in southern England on 8 September also contributed to the defeat. Many historians fault Harold for hurrying south and not gathering more forces before confronting William at Hastings, although it is not clear that the English forces were insufficient to deal with William's forces. Against these arguments for an exhausted English army, the length of the battle, which lasted an entire day, show that the English forces were not tired by their long march. Tied in with the speed of Harold's advance to Hastings is the possibility Harold may not have trusted.

Earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria once their enemy; Tostig had been defeated, and declined to bring them and their forces south. Modern historians have pointed out that one reason for Harold's rush to battle was to contain William's depredations and keep him from breaking free of his beachhead. Most of the blame for the defeat probably lies in the events of the battle. William was the more experienced military leader, and in addition the lack of cavalry on the English side allowed Harold fewer tactical options. Some writers have criticized Harold for not exploiting the opportunity offered by the rumored death of William early in the battle.

The English appear to have erred in not staying strictly on the defense, for when they pursued the retreating Normans they exposed their flanks to attack. Whether this was due to the inexperience of the English commanders or the indiscipline of the English soldiers is unclear. In the end, Harold's death appears to have been decisive, as it signaled the break-up of the English forces in disarray. The historian David Nicolle said of the battle that William's army "demonstrated – not without difficulty – the superiority of Norman-French mixed cavalry and infantry tactics over the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons." The day after the battle, Harold's body was identified, either by his amour or marks on his body. His personal standard was presented to William, and later sent to the papacy. The bodies of the English dead, including some of Harold's brothers and his housecarls, were left on the battlefield, although some were removed by relatives later.

The Norman dead were buried in a large communal grave, which has not been found. Exact casualty figures are unknown. Of the Englishmen known to be at the battle, the number of dead implies that the death rate was about 50 per cent of those engaged, although this may be too high. Of the named Normans who fought at Hastings, one in seven is stated to have died, but these were all noblemen, and it is probable that the death rate among the common soldiers was higher. Although Orderic Vitalis's figures are highly exaggerated, his ratio of one in four casualties may be accurate. Marren speculates that perhaps 2,000 Normans and 4,000 Englishmen were killed at Hastings.

The Normans buried their dead in mass graves. Reports stated that some of the English dead were still being found on the hillside years later. Although scholars thought for a long time that remains would not be recoverable, due to the acidic soil, recent finds have changed this view. One skeleton that was found in a medieval cemetery, and originally was thought to be associated with the 13th century Battle of Lewes now is thought to be associated with Hastings instead. Among those were killed was Richard de la More.

The Moore/ de la More/ de la Mare lands in England belong to the family at one point.
Moore of Northmoor
Moore of Kirkdale
Moore of Appleby Parva
Moore of Westmoreland
Moore of Berkshire
Moore of Salisbury
Moore of Cheshire
Moore of Somerset
Moore of Dorset
Moore of Bedfordshire
Moore of Leicester

The First baron War

King John in June 1215 was forced to put his seal to "The Articles of the Barons" by a group of powerful barons who could no longer stand John's failed leadership and despotic rule. The king's Great seal was attached to it on 15 June 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on 19 July 1215. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on 15 July: this was the original Magna Carta. "The law of the land" is one of the great watchwords of Magna Carta, standing in opposition to the king's mere will. The Magna Carta of 1215 contained clauses which in theory noticeably reduced the power of the king, such as clause 61, the "security clause".

This clause allowed a group of 25 barons to override the king at any time by way of force, a medieval legal process called distrain that was normal in feudal relationships but had never been applied to a king. After a few months of half-hearted attempts to negotiate in the summer of 1215, open warfare broke out between the rebel barons and the king and his supporters. There was Peter de la Mare who sided with the French
against King John in 1216, and Milo de St. Maur also fought against king John.

The Welsh Mawr

In 855, Rhodri Mawr met a Danish fleet in Anglesey led by Gormr, a warrior who had worried Charles The Bald's Kingdom. Rhodri defeated and killed Gormr; The news was so greeted with relief when it became known in Charles's court in Liege. The threat posed by the Vikings who could quickly escape on their ships, were difficult to counter and it was necessary to adopt an unusual, battle-seeking strategy to hurt the raiders when the chance presented itself. Rhodri was successful in 855 and in 893.

The Anglo- Saxon chronicle records that a Welsh forces joined up with the Anglo-Saxon's force to defeat a Viking force encampment near Severn. In 877 Rhodri Mawr was force to flee to Ireland by an alliance between the Vikings and the men of Ceowulf of Mercia. He return the following year and defeated the Viking in battle on Anglesey. Later in 878, Rhodri and his son Gwriad were slain by the Mercians who were seeking to extend their influence in Gwynedd. Their ambitions meet with a heavy resistance. There was Gynddelw Brydydd Mawr was part of a raid which lead to the fall of Powys.

Wars with Welsh and the Scots

Sir John de la More went on an expedition against Llewellin, Prince of Wales. Many Mores, Mare, and Maur fought in Scotland and Wales during 1282-1350. First we will be looking at the Welsh war then the Scottish campaign. Amongst these English army during the Welsh campaign of 1282-83 there were Sir John de la More, Sir Richard de la More, Sir William St. Maur, Sir Roger de la More, and others. John de la More also fought in the war of Brecknock and Radnor. In 1282 he fought at the battle of Rudolan against the Welsh. William de St. Maur conquered Penhow, Woundy and Monmouth Tron from the Welsh in 1235. There is a Stephen de la More when he fought in the years of 1282,1306,1307 and 1310 at the battles of Flanders in 1397, Falkirk, and was in the Scottish expeditions.

After a successful invasion and take over of Wales by England; they found themselves fighting against the Scots. Once again John de la More went to war in 1309 against the Scots. He also fought at the battle of Falkirk. Sir Roger de la More fought at the battle of Boroughbridge, during the first war of independence for Scotland. Sir Roger de la More also in the year of 1211 is mentioned as a commander of the infantry in the king's army in Wales.

The Battle of Ewloe

Owain's army made camp at Basingwerk to block the route to Twthill at Rhuddlan . Henry split from his main army with a smaller force that would march through the nearby Ewloe woods (in modern-day Flintshire) to outflank Owain's army. Sensing this, Owain is said to have sent a large army led by his sonsDafydd ab Owain Gwynedd and Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd into the woods to guard Owain's main force from Henry's outflanking army. Owain split his army and decided to personally lead an extra 200 men into the Ewloe woods to reinforce his sons' armies. When Henry's outflanking force advanced into the wood, they were ambushed by Owain's forces and cut down. The remainder of Henry's force retreated, with Henry narrowly avoiding being killed himself (having been rescued by Roger, Earl of Hertford).

Henry managed to escape back to his main army alive. Not wishing to engage the Angevin army directly, Owain repositioned himself first at St. Asaph, then further west, clearing the road for Henry II to enter into Rhuddlan "ingloriously". Once in Rhuddlan, Henry II received word that his naval expedition had failed. Instead of meeting Henry II at Deganwy or Rhuddlan as the king had commanded, the English fleet had gone to plunder Môn and the Norman troops on board had been defeated by the local Welsh soldiers (Henry FitzRoy himself had also been killed). Despite Owain's success in the Ewloe woods and his men on Anglesey's success, Henry had still succeeded in securing Rhuddlan, and so Owain felt obliged to make peace with him. Owain surrendered the lands of Rhuddlan and Tegeingl to Chester. He also gave Cadwaladr his lands back in Ceredigion, which recemented the alliance between the two brothers. Owain also agreed to render homage and fealty to Henry.

The Battle of Boroughbridge

When Lancaster arrived at the town of Boroughbridge, Harclay was already in possession of the bridge crossing the river. The rebel forces counted probably no more than 700 knights and men-atarms, against the 4,000 or so soldiers in the royal army.Lancaster initially tried to negotiate, but Harclay could not be swayed. Since there was no realistic alternative place to cross the river, and with the royal forces in pursuit from the south, the rebels had no choice but to fight. The ensuing battle was short and one-sided. Harclay had deployed his men on foot to hold the bridge from the northern side. Additional forces were placed at a nearby ford, though contemporary sources do not specify the exact location of this ford.

The royal pikemen were deployed in a schiltron formation, a tactic learned from the Scots in the Scottish wars. The formation proved effective against the oncoming cavalry. The rebels divided into two columns; one led by Hereford and Roger de Clifford, attacking the bridge on foot, the other under Lancaster, trying to cross the ford by horse.According to a graphic description in the chronicle the Brut, Hereford was killed as he crossed the bridge by a pikeman hiding underneath, who thrust his spear up through the Earl's anus. Clifford was also severely injured, and that column of the army fell into disarray. Lancaster's party fared little better; under heavy archery fire his cavalry was cut off before it even reached the ford, and was forced to retreat. This event shows an early – if not entirely novel – effective use of the longbow against cavalry, a tactic which was to become central to future English military success. Lancaster negotiated a truce with Harclay, and withdrew to the town.

During the night a great number of the rebels deserted, and the next day the sheiff of York arrived from the south with additional forces. Lancaster, now greatly outnumbered and with no chance of retreat, had no choice but to surrender to Harclay. The de la Mores of Gloucestershire enter the services of Ayme de Valence in the late thirteen century. The Mores of Gloucester fought at the following engagements at Flanders (1297), Battle of Falkirk, siege of Caerlaverock, Methven, Loudoun Hill, Bannockburn, and old Byland against the Scottish army and the clansmen of clan Muir.

The Siege of Caerlaverock Castle

In July 1300 King Edward I of England marched north with an army including eighty-seven of the Barons of England and several knights of Brittany and Lorraine. John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond. (c. 1266-1334) was among Edward's most trusted warriors and is said to have been present. He was a son of the John II, duke of Brittany who had grown up in Edward's court and it was said that Edward treated him as a son.
The Maxwells, under their chief Sir Eustace Maxwell, made a vigorous defence which repelled the English several times. In the end the garrison were compelled to surrender, after which it was found that only sixty men had withstood the whole English army for a considerable period. In recent years,

Historic Scotland has organized re-enactments of the Siege. During the siege the English heralds composed a roll of arms, the Roll of Caerlaverock, in the form of verses of poetry, each describing the feats of valour of each noble or knight present with a poetic blazon of his armorials.

The Hundred Year War

The Hundred year war was fought by two main super powers back then was England and France. There were many de la Mores and de la Mare have fought along side with Edward the Black prince in France. The first phase was known as the Edwardian phrase was fought from (1337-1360) and the de la Mores and Mare fought at Crecy, Les Espagnols Sur Mer, and the Battle of Poictiers. Possible that the de la Mores and Mare fought in the different phrase of the hundred year wars and during the Lancasterian phrase at the battle of Agincourt. The following names that fought in the hundred years war which includes: Sir John de la More ( a veteran soldier), Reginald de la Mare, Henry de la More, Elias de la Mare/ More. There was also a William de la More who fought in many battles that are mention as well at the battle of Navarette.

Battle of Crecy

There was Reginald de la More, and Sir William de la More fought at Crecy Edward deployed his army facing south on a sloping hillside at Crecy- en- Ponthieu; the slope put the French mounted knights at an immediate disadvantage. The left flank was anchored against Wadicourt, while the right was protected by Crecy itself and the River Maye beyond. This made it impossible for the French army to outflank them. The army was also well-fed and rested, giving them an advantage over the French, who did not rest before the battle.

The English army was led by Edward III; it mainly comprised English and Welsh troops along with allied Breton and German mercenaries. The exact size and composition of the English force is not known. Andrew Ayton suggests a figure of around 2,500 men at arms, nobles and knights, heavily armoured and armed men, accompanied by their retinues. The army contained around 5,000 longbowmen, 3,000 hobelars (light cavalry and mounted archers) and 3,500 spearmen. Clifford Rodgers suggests 2,500 men-at-arms, 7,000 longbowmen, 3,250 hobelars and 2,300 spearmen. Jonathon Sumption believes the force was somewhat smaller, based on calculations of the carrying capacity of the transport fleet that was assembled to ferry the army to the continent. Based on this, he has put his estimate at around 7,000–10,000. The power of Edward's army at Crécy lay in the massed use of the longbow: a powerful tall bow made primarily of yew.

Upon Edward's accession in 1327, he had inherited a kingdom beset with two zones of conflict: Aquitaine and Scotland. England had not been a dominant military force in Europe: the French dominated in Aquitaine, and Scotland had all but achieved its independence since the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Previously, medieval battles had largely been decided by the charge of heavily armoured mounted knights, countered effectively by the Scots infantry at battles such as Stirling bridge and Bannockburn.. Longbows had been effectively used before by English armies: Edward I successfully used longbowmen to break up static Scottish schiltron formations at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298; however it was not until Edward III's reign that they were accorded greater significance in English military doctrine. Edward realised the importance of inflicting severe damage upon an enemy force before melée combat began; at Halidon Hill in 1333, he used massed longbowmen and favourable terrain to inflict a significant defeat on the Scots forces—in some ways a harbinger of his similar tactics at Crécy.

A second important advantage of longbowmen was cost: they were far cheaper to equip and train than aristocratic knights. To ensure he had a force of experienced archers to call upon, Edward engrained archery into English culture; he encouraged its practice and the production of stocks of arrows and bows in peacetime as well as war. He later declared in 1363 that archery had to be practised by law, banning other sports to accommodate archery. A common claim for the longbow was its ability to penetrate plate armour due to its draw weight, a claim contested by contemporary accounts and modern tests. A controlled test conducted by Mike Loades at the Royal Military College of Science's ballistics test site for the programme Weapons That Made Britain - The Longbow found that arrows shot at a speed of around 52 metres per second against a plate of munition-quality steel (not speciallyhardened) were ineffective at a range of around 80 metres, enough to mildly bruise/wound the target at 30 metres, and lethal at a range of 20 metres. Archery was described as ineffective against plate armour by contemporaries at battles such as Bergerac in 1345, Neville's cross in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356.

Later studies also found that late period plate armour such as that employed by Italian city-state mercenary companies was effective at stopping contemporary arrows.Horses, however, were almost wholly unprotected against arrows, and arrows could penetrate the lighter armour on limbs. Clifford Rodgers, commenting on the later, similar Battle of Agincourt, argues that the psychological effect of a massive storm of arrows would have broken the fighting spirit of the target forces. Archers were issued with around 60-72 arrows before a battle began. Most archers would not shoot at the maximum rate, around six per minute for the heaviest bows, as the psychological and physical exertion of battle strained the men. As the battle wore on, the arm and shoulder muscles would tire from exertion, the fingers holding the bowstring would strain and the stress of combat would slacken the rate of fire. The French army was led by Philip VI and the blind John of Bohemia.

The exact size of the French army is less certain as the financial records from the Crécy campaign are lost, however there is a prevailing consensus that it was substantially larger than the English. The French army likely numbered around 30,000 men. Contemporary chronicler Jean Froissart places the French numbers at 100,000, while Wynkeley suggests 80,000. These numbers have been described as unrealistic and exaggerated by historians, going by the extant war treasury records for 1340, six years before the battle. Ayton suggests around 12,000 mounted men-at-arms as the core soldiery of the French army, several thousand Genoese crossbowmen and a "large, though indeterminate number of common infantry".

Most historians have accepted the figure of 6,000 Genoese crossbowmen. However, Schnerb questions this figure, based on the estimates of 2,000 available crossbowmen in all of France in 1340. That Genoa on its own could have put several thousand mercenary crossbowmen at the disposal of the French monarch is described by Schnerb as "doubtful". The contingent of common infantrymen is not known with any certainty, except that it outnumbered the English and was in the thousands.

The Battle of Crécy is often exemplified as a battle in which the longbow defeated the rival crossbow. The crossbow had become the dominant ranged infantry weapon on the continental European battlefield: the choice weapon for expert mercenary companies. The crossbow was favoured as it required less physical strength to load and shoot than a longbow, and could release more kinetic energy than its rival, making it deadlier at close range. They were, however, hampered by slower, more difficult loading, their cumbersome shape and their range, in which the longbow had the advantage.

Later developments in more powerful crossbows in the 15th century, such as the windlass-span crossbow, negated these advantages, while advances in bow technology brought to Europe from armies on crusade introduced composite technology; decreasing the size of the crossbow while increasing its power. A common claim about the crossbow is a reload time of one bolt every 1–2 minutes. A test conducted by Mike Loades for Weapons That Changed Britain - The Longbow found that a belt and claw span crossbow could discharge 4 bolts in 30 seconds, while a longbow could shoot 9. A second speed test conducted using a hand-span crossbow found that the weapon could shoot 6 bolts in the same time it took for a longbow to shoot 10.
The English army was deployed in three divisions, or "battles".

Edward's son, Edward, the Prince of Wales commanded the vanguard with John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, Thomas de Brauchamp, the Earl of Warwick, and Sir John Chandos. This division lay forward from the rest of the army and would bear the brunt of the French assault. Edward himself commanded the division behind, while the rear division was led by William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton. Each division composed of spearmen in the rear, men-at-arms in the centre and the longbowmen arrayed in front of the army in a jagged line.The exact location of the English baggage train is not known. Edward ordered his men-atarms to fight on foot rather than stay mounted.

The English also dug a series of ditches, pits and caltrops to maim the French cavalry. The French army came north from Abbeyville, the advance guard of his army arriving at the Crécy ridgeline at around midday on 26 August. After reconnoitring the English position, it was advised to Philip that the army should encamp and give battle the following day. Philip met stiff resistance from his senior nobles and was thus forced to concede that the attack would be made that day. This put them at a significant disadvantage; the English army was well-fed after plundering the countryside and well-rested, having slept in their positions the night before the battle.

The French were further hampered by the absence of their Constable. It was the duty of the Constable of France to lead its armies in battle, however, the Constable Raoul II of Brienne, count of Eu had been taken prisoner when the English army sacked Caen, depriving them of his leadership. Philip formed up his army for battle; the Genoese under Antonio Doria and Carlo Grimaldi formed the vanguard, followed by a division of knights and men-at-arms led by Charles II, count of Alencon accompanied by the blind King John of Bohemia. The next division was led by Rudolph, Duke of Lorraine and Louis II, Count of Blois, while Philip himself commanded the rearguard. The French army moved forward late in the afternoon, around 4pm after it had formed up.

As it advanced, a sudden rainstorm broke over the field of battle. The English archers de-strung their bows to avoid the strings becoming damaged; the Genoese with their crossbows could take no such precautions, resulting in damage to their weapons. The crossbowmen began their advance, however they had left their pavises back in the baggage train, and thus had no means of protection as they loaded their weapons.The Genoese moved within range and discharged their weapons. Damaged by the rain, the slackened crossbows had little effect on the English line.

The English archers shot their bows in retaliation, inflicting heavy casualties on the Genoese, causing them to retreat. The knights and nobles following in Alencon's division, seeing the routed mercenaries, hacked them down as they retreated. Froissart writes of the event: The English, who were drawn up in three divisions and seated on the ground, on seeing their enemies advance, arose boldly and fell into their ranks... You must know that these kings, earls, barons, and lords of France did not advance in any regular order... There were about fifteen thousand Genoese crossbowmen; but they were quite fatigued, having marched on foot that day six leagues, completely armed, and with their wet crossbows.

They told the constable that they were not in a fit condition to do any great things that day in battle. The Count of Alençon, hearing this, was reported to say, "This is what one gets by employing such scoundrels, who fail when there is any need for them. — Chateaubriand, after Froissart's middle French, gives: "On se doit bien charger de telle ribaudaille qui faille au besoin" The clash of the retreating Genoese and the advancing French cavalry threw the army into disarray.

The longbowmen continued to discharge their bows into the chaos, while five Ribaldis , early
cannon, added to the confusion, though it is doubtful that they had inflicted any significant casualties. Froissart writes that such guns fired "two or three discharges on the Genoese", likely large arrows or primitive grapeshot. Giovanni Villani writes of the guns: The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire...They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses... The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners... [by the end of the battle], the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls.

With the Genoese neutralised, the French cavalry charged the English ranks, however, the slope and obstacles laid by the English disrupted the charge. The continued hail of longbow arrows inflicted mounting losses upon the knights, blocking successive waves of advance by the following ranks. The massed ranks could not break the English position, which subjected them to a relentless barrage of arrows, making many of the horses casualties. The Black Prince's division was hard pressed by the French attack, however Edward refused to send help with the comment; "Let the boy win his spurs".

The French cavalry made repeated attempts to charge up the slope, however with each successive wave more losses were sustained. In the course of the battle, the blind king John was struck down attacking the Black Prince's position. The struggle continued well into the night when Philip abandoned the field of battle. Philip had his horse killed from underneath him twice during the battle and may have taken an arrow to the jaw. His sacred and royal banner, the Oriflamme, which when raised meant that no quarter was to be given to the enemy, was also captured and taken, one of the five occasions this occurred during the banner's century spanning history. The battle ended soon after the French king fled, the remaining men-at-arms running from the battle.

Battle of Poictiers

At the beginning of the battle, the English removed their baggage train leading the French to think they were about to retreat which provoked a hasty charge by the French knights against the archers. According to Froissart, the English attacked the enemy, especially the horses, with a shower of arrows. Geoffery the baker writes that the French armour was invulnerable to the English arrows, that the arrowheads either skidded off the armour or shattered on impact. Given the following actions of the archers, it seems likely Baker was correct. The armour on the horses was weaker on the sides and back, so the archers moved to the sides of the cavalry and shot the horses in the flanks. This was a popular method of stopping a cavalry charge, as a falling horse often destroyed the cohesion of the enemy's line. The results were devastating.

The Dauphin attacked Salisbury and pressed his advance in spite of heavy shot by the English archers and complications of running into the retreating vanguard of Clermont's force. Green suggests that the Dauphin had thousands of troops with him in this phase of the attack. He advanced to the English lines but ultimately fell back.The French were unable to penetrate the protective hedge the English were using. This phase of the attack lasted about two hours. This cavalry attack was followed by infantry attack. The Dauphin's infantry engaged in heavy fighting, but withdrew to regroup. The next wave of infantry under Orleans, seeing that the Dauphin's men were not attacking, turned back and panicked.

This stranded the forces led by the King himself. This was a formidable fighting force, and the English archers were running very low on arrows; the archers joined the infantry in the fight and some of both groups mounted horses to form an improvised cavalry. At about this time, King John sent two sons from the battlefield. His youngest son, Philip, stayed with him and fought at his side in the final phase of the battle. When the Dauphin and other sons withdrew, the duke of Orléans also withdrew. Combat was hard, but the Black Prince still had a mobile reserve hidden in the woods, commanded by Jean de Grailly, the Captal de Buch; which was able to circle around and attack the French in the flank and rear. The French were
fearful of encirclement and attempted to flee. King John was captured with his immediate entourage only after a memorable resistance. Henry de More was wounded at this battle and was knighted by Edward the black prince.

The Battle of Agincourt

In this battle there was Elias de la More/ Mare who was killed at this battle and a Richard de la Mare fought at this battle. Henry V invaded France following the failure of negotiations with the French. He claimed the title of King of France through his great-grandfather Edward III, although in practice the English kings were generally prepared to renounce this claim if the French would acknowledge the English claim on Aquitaine and other French lands. He initially called a great council in the spring of 1414 to discuss going to war with France, but the lords insisted that he should negotiate further and moderate his claims.

In the following negotiations Henry said that he would give up his claim to the French throne if the French would pay the 1.6 million crowns outstanding from the ransom of John II (who had been captured at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356), and concede English ownership of the lands of Normandy, Touraine, Anjou, Brittany and Flanders as well as Aquitaine. Henry would marry Princess Catherine, the young daughter of Charles VI, and receive a dowry of 2 million crowns.

The French responded with what they considered the generous terms of marriage with Princess Catherine, a dowry of 600,000 crowns, and an enlarged Aquitaine. By 1415, negotiations had ground to a halt, with the English claiming that the French had mocked their claims and ridiculed Henry himself. In December 1414, the English parliament was persuaded to grant Henry a "double subsidy", a tax at twice the traditional rate, to recover his inheritance from the French. On 19 April 1415, Henry again asked the Great Council to sanction war with France, and this time they agreed.

Henry's army landed in northern France on 13 August 1415, carried by a fleet described by Shakespeare as "a city on the inconstant billows dancing / For so appears this fleet majestical", often reported to comprise 1,500 ships, but probably far smaller, and besieged the port of Harfleur with an army of about 12,000, and up to 20,000 horses. The siege took longer than expected. The town surrendered on 22 September, and the English army did not leave until 8 October. The campaign season was coming to an end, and the English army had suffered many casualties through disease.

Rather than retire directly to England for the winter, with his costly expedition resulting in the capture of only one town, Henry decided to march most of his army (roughly 9,000) through Normandy to the port of Calais, the English stronghold in northern France, to demonstrate by his presence in the territory at the head of an army that his right to rule in the duchy was more than a mere abstract legal and historical claim.
He also intended the maneuver as a deliberate provocation to battle aimed at the dauphin, who had failed to respond to Henry's personal challenge to combat at Harfleur. The French had raised an army during the siege which assembled around Rouen. This was not strictly a feudal army, but an army paid through a system similar to the English. The French hoped to raise 9,000 troops, but the army was not ready in time to relieve Harfleur.

After Henry V marched to the north, the French moved to blockade them along the river Somme. They were successful for a time, forcing Henry to move south, away from Calais, to find a ford. The English finally crossed the Somme south of Peronne, at Bethencourt and Voyennes and resumed marching north. Without the river protection, the French were hesitant to force a battle. They shadowed Henry's army while calling a semonce des nobles, calling on local nobles to join the army. By 24 October, both armies faced each other for battle, but the French declined, hoping for the arrival of more troops.

The two armies spent the night of 24 October on open ground. The next day the French initiated negotiations as a delaying tactic, but Henry ordered his army to advance and to start a battle that, given the state of his army, he would have preferred to avoid, or to fight defensively: that was how Crecy and the other famous longbow victories had been won. The English had very little food, had marched 260 miles (420 km) in two and a half weeks, were suffering from sickness such as dysentery, and faced much larger numbers of well equipped French men at arms. The French army blocked Henry's way to the safety of Calais, however, and delaying battle would only further weaken his tired army and allow more French troops to arrive. The location of the battle is not precisely fixed in contemporary accounts. Most authors believe it was fought in the narrow strip of open land formed between the woods of Tramecourt and Azincourt . However, the lack of archaeological evidence at this traditional site has led to suggestions it may have been fought to the west of Azincourt.

Early on the 25th, Henry deployed his army (approximately 1,500 men at arms and 7,000 longbowmen) across a 750-yard (690 m) part of the defile. The army was organized into three "battles" or divisions: the vanguard, led by the Duke of York; the main battle led by Henry himself; and the rearguard, led by Lord Camoys. In addition, Sir Thomas Epringham, one of Henry's most experienced household knights, had a role in marshalling the archers. It is likely that the English adopted their usual battle line of longbowmen on either flank, with men-at-arms and knights in the center. They may also have deployed some archers in the center of the line. The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep. The English and Welsh archers on the flanks drove pointed wooden stakes, or palings, into the ground at an angle to force cavalry to veer off. This use of stakes may have been inspired by the Battle of Nicopolis of 1396, where forces of the Ottoman empire used the tactic against French cavalry.

The English made their confessions before the battle, as was customary. Henry, worried about the enemy launching surprise raids, and wanting his troops to remain focused, ordered all his men to spend the night before the battle in silence, on pain of having an ear cut off. He told his men that he would rather die in the coming battle than be captured and ransomed. Henry made a speech emphasizing the justness of his cause, and reminding his army of previous great defeats the kings of England had inflicted on the French. The Burgundian sources have him concluding the speech by telling his men that the French had boasted that they would cut off two fingers from the right hand of every archer, so that he could never draw a longbow again.

Whether this was true is open to question; as previously noted, death was the normal fate of any soldier who could not be ransomed. The French force was not only larger than that of the English, their noble men-at-arms would have considered themselves superior to the large number of archers in the English army, whom the French (based on their experience in recent memory of using and facing archers) considered relatively insignificant.

For example, the chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were "ten French nobles against one English", ignoring the archers completely. Several French accounts emphasize that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English (and win the ransoms of the English men-at-arms) that they insisted on being in the first line; as one of the contemporary accounts put it: "All the lords wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights." The French were arrayed in three lines or "battles".

The first line was led by Constable d'Albret, Marshal Boucicault and the Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon, with attached cavalry wings under the Count of Vendome and Sir Clignet de Brebant. The second line was commanded by the Dukes of Bar and Alencon and the Count of Nevers. The third line was under the Counts of Dammartin and Fauconberg. The Burgundian chronicler, Jean de Wavrin, writes that there were 8,000 men-at-arms, 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard, with two wings of 600 and 800 mounted men at-arms, and the main battle having "as many knights, esquires and archers as in the vanguard", with the rearguard containing "all of the rest of the men-at-arms".

The Herald of Berry uses somewhat different figures of 4,800 men-at-arms in the first line, 3,000 men in the second line, with two "wings" containing 600 mounted men-at-arms each, and a total of "10,000 men-at-arms", but does not mention a third line. Thousands of troops appear to have been in the rearguard, containing servants and commoners whom the French were either unable or unwilling to deploy. Wavrin gives the total French army size as 50,000: "They had plenty of archers and crossbowmen but nobody wanted to let them fire .

The reason for this was that the site was so narrow that there was only enough room for the men-at-arms." A different source says that the French did not even deploy 4,000 of the best crossbowmen "on the pretext they had no need of their help". The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favored the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud through which the French knights had to walk. An analysis by battlefield detectives has looked at the crowd dynamics of the battlefield. The Battlefield Detectives episode states that when the density reached four men per square meter, soldiers would not even be able to take full steps forward, slowing the speed of the advance by 70%.

Accounts of the battle describe the French engaging the English men-at-arms before being rushed from the sides by the longbow men as the melee developed. The English account in the Gesta Henrici says: "For when some of them, killed when battle was first joined, fall at the front, so great was the undisciplined violence and pressure of the mass of men behind them that the living fell on top of the dead, and others falling on top of the living were killed as well."

Although the French initially pushed the English back, they became so closely packed that they are described as having trouble using their weapons properly. The French monk of St. Denis says: "Their vanguard, composed of about 5,000 men, found itself at first so tightly packed that those who were in the third rank could scarcely use their swords," and the Burgundian sources have a similar passage. As the battle was fought on a recently ploughed field, and there had recently been heavy rain leaving it very muddy, it proved very tiring to walk through in full plate amour.

The French monk of St. Denis describes the French troops as "marching through the middle of the mud where they sank up to their knees. So they were already overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy". The deep, soft mud particularly favored the English force because, once knocked to the ground, the heavily armored French knights had a hard time getting back up to fight in the mêlée. Barker states that some knights, encumbered by their amour, actually drowned in their helmets. On the morning of 25 October, the French were still waiting for additional troops to arrive.

The Duke of Barbant (about 2,000 men), the Duke of Anjou (about 600 men), and the Duke of Brittany (6,000 men, according to Monstrelet), were all marching to join the army. For three hours after sunrise there was no fighting. Military textbooks of the time stated: "Everywhere and on all occasions that foot soldiers march against their enemy face to face, those who march lose and those who remain standing still and holding firm win." On top of this, the French were expecting thousands of men to join them if they waited. They were blocking Henry's retreat, and were perfectly happy to wait for as long as it took.

There had even been a suggestion that the English would run away rather than give battle when they saw that they would be fighting so many French princes. Henry's men, on the other hand, were already very weary from hunger, illness and marching. Even though Henry knew as well as the French did that his army would perform better on the defensive, he was eventually forced to take a calculated risk, and move his army farther forward to start the battle.

This entailed abandoning his chosen position and pulling out, advancing, and then reinstalling
the long sharpened wooden stakes pointed outwards toward the enemy, which helped protect the longbow men from cavalry charges. (The use of stakes was an innovation for the English: during the battle of Crecy, for example, the archers had been instead protected by pits and other obstacles.) The tightness of the terrain also seems to have restricted the planned deployment of the French forces.

The French had originally drawn up a battle plan that had archers and crossbowmen in front of their men-at arms, with a cavalry force at the rear specifically designed to "fall upon the archers, and use their force to break them," but in the event, the French archers and crossbowmen were deployed behind and to the sides of the men-at-arms (where they seem to have played almost no part, except possibly for an initial volley of arrows at the start of the battle). The cavalry force, which could have devastated the English line if it had attacked while they moved their stakes, charged only after the initial volley of arrows from the English.

It is unclear whether the delay occurred because the French were hoping the English would launch a frontal assault (and were surprised when the English instead started shooting from their new defensive position), or whether the French mounted knights instead did not react quickly enough to the English advance. French chroniclers agree that when the mounted charge did come, it did not contain as many men as it should have; Gilles le Bouvier states that some had wandered off to warm themselves and others were walking or feeding their horses. The French cavalry, despite being somewhat disorganized and not at full numbers, charged towards the longbow men, but it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbow men (because of the encroaching woodland) and unable to charge through the forest of sharpened stakes that protected the archers.

John Keegan argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armoured only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation long range shots used as the charge started. The mounted charge and subsequent retreat churned up the already muddy terrain between the French and the English. Juliet Barker quotes a contemporary account by a monk of St. Denis who reports how the wounded and panicking horses galloped through the advancing infantry, scattering them and trampling them down in their headlong flight from the battlefield. The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot".

A complete coat of plate was considered such good protection that shields were generally not used, although the Burgundian contemporary sources specifically distinguish between Frenchmen who used shields and those who did not, and Rogers has suggested that the front elements of the French force may have used axes and shields. Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armour of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armour, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armour.

Rogers suggests that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considers a knight in the best quality steel armour would have been more or less invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but would still have been vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.

In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing 50– 60 pounds (23–27 kg), gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades. The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range.

When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatcchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms.

The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line. The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground by the English and then unable to get back up. As the melee developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively. Rogers suggests that the French at the back of their deep formation would have been attempting to push forward and quite literally add their weight to the advance, without realising that they were hindering the ability of those at the front to manoeuvre and fight, actually pushing them into the English formation of lancepoints.

After the initial wave, the French would have had to fight over and on the bodies of those who had fallen before them. In such a "press" of thousands of men, Rogers finds it plausible that a significant number could have suffocated in their armour, as is described by several sources, and is also known to have happened in other battles. The French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in the thousands.

The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured, as those of the first line had been. The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain around the three main English standards. According to contemporary English accounts, Henry was directly involved in the hand-to-hand fighting. Upon hearing that his youngest brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester had been wounded in the groin, Henry took his household guard and stood over his brother, in the front rank of the fighting, until Humphrey could be dragged to safety. The king received an axe blow to the head, which knocked off a piece of the crown that formed part of his helmet.

The only French success was an attack on the lightly protected English baggage train, with Ysembart d'Azincourt (leading a small number of men-at-arms and varlets plus about 600 peasants) seizing some of Henry's personal treasures, including a crown. Whether this was part of a deliberate French plan or an act of local brigandage is unclear from the sources.

Certainly, d'Azincourt was a local knight but he may have been chosen to lead the attack because of his local knowledge and the lack of availability of a more senior soldier. In some accounts the attack happened towards the end of the battle, and led the English to think they were being attacked from the rear. Barker, following the Gesta Henrici, believed to have been written by an English chaplain who was actually in the baggage train, concludes that the attack happened at the start of the battle. Regardless of when the baggage assault happened, at some point after the initial English victory, Henry became alarmed that the French were regrouping for another attack. The Gesta Henrici places this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh").

Le Fevre and Wavrin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger. It seems it was purely a decision of Henry, since the English knights found it contrary to chivalry, and contrary to their interests to kill valuable hostages for whom it was commonplace to ask ransom. Henry threatened to hang whoever did not obey his orders. In any event, Henry ordered the slaughter of what were perhaps several thousand
French prisoners, sparing only the most high ranked (presumably those most likely to fetch a large ransom under the chivalric system of warfare).

According to most chroniclers, Henry's fear was that the prisoners (who, in an unusual turn of events, actually outnumbered their captors) would realize their advantage in numbers, rearm themselves with the weapons strewn about the field and overwhelm the exhausted English forces. Contemporary chroniclers did not criticize him for it. In his study of the battle, John Keegan argued that the main aim was not to actually kill the French knights but rather to terrorize them into submission and quell any possibility they might resume the fight, which would probably have caused the uncommitted French reserve forces to join the fray, as well. Such an event would have posed a risk to the still-outnumbered English and could have easily turned a stunning victory into a mutually destructive defeat, as the English forces were now largely intermingled with the French and would have suffered grievously from the arrows of their own longbow men had they needed to resume shooting.

Keegan also speculated that due to the relatively low number of archers actually involved in killing the French knights (roughly 200 by his estimate), together with the refusal of the English knights to assist in a duty they saw as distastefully unchivalrous and combined with the sheer difficulty of killing such a large number of prisoners in such a short space of time, the actual number of French knights killed might not have even reached the hundreds before the reserves fled the field and Henry called an end to the slaughter. The lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties (dead, wounded, taken prisoner).

However, it is clear that though the English were outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French. The French sources all give 4,000– 10,000 French dead, with up to 1,600 English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more men than the English. The English sources vary between about 1,500 and 11,000 for the French dead, with English dead put at no more than 100. Barker identifies from the available records "at least" 112 Englishmen killed in the fighting, including Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, a grandson of Edward III. One widely used estimate puts the English casualties at 450, not an insignificant number in an army of about 8,500, but far fewer than the thousands the French lost, nearly all of whom were killed or captured.

Using the lowest French estimate of their own dead of 4,000 would imply a ratio of nearly 9 to 1 in favor of the English, or over 10 to 1 if the prisoners are included. The French suffered heavily. Three dukes, at least eight counts, a viscount, and an archbishop died, along with numerous other nobles. Of the great royal office holders, France lost her Constable, Admiral, Master of the Crossbowmen and prévôt of the marshals. The baillis of nine major northern towns were killed, often along with their sons, relatives and supporters. In the words of Juliet Barker, the battle "cut a great swath through the natural leaders of French society in Artois, Ponthieu, Normandy, and Picardy.” Estimates of the number of prisoners vary between 700 and 2,200, amongst them the Duke of Orleans (the famous poet Charles d'Orléans) and Jean Le Maingre, Marshal of France. Although the victory had been militarily decisive, its impact was complex.

It did not lead to further English conquests immediately as Henry's priority was to return to England, which he did on 16 November, to be received in triumph in London on the 23rd. Henry returned a conquering hero, in the eyes of his subjects and European powers outside France, blessed by God. It established the legitimacy of the Lancastrian monarchy and the future campaigns of Henry to pursue his "rights and privileges" in France. Other benefits to the English were longer term. Very quickly after the battle, the fragile truce between the Armagnac and Burgundian factions broke down.

The brunt of the battle had fallen on the Armagnacs and it was they who suffered the majority of senior casualties and carried the blame for the defeat. The Burgundians seized on the opportunity and within 10 days of the battle had mustered their armies and marched on Paris. This lack of unity in France allowed Henry eighteen months to prepare militarily and politically for a renewed campaign. When that campaign took place, it was made easier by the damage done to the political and military structures of Normandy by the battle.

The English Civil Wars

The English Civil wars will also include the war of the roses. Now it is not certain if there were any de la Mores who fought in this war but most likely they did. The war of the roses was fought between two main houses. The House of York and the House of Lancaster. I believe that the de la Mores fought for the house of Lancaster, since most of the de la Mores living in Gloucester, Lincoln , Lancastershire and others. It would also make sense that many de la Mores and Mare fought in the English civil wars. In one particular instance there was a John More at the Siege of Lathorn House.

The Mores and Mares most likely fought at the following engagements Siege of Gloucester, Battle of Boldon Hill, Battle of Gainsborough, Battle of Winceby, Siege of Lincoln, storming of Bolton, Battle of Ormskirk, Battle of Neseby, and Battle of Stow-on-the-Wold. In the Second and third English civil wars; the Mores and Mare fought at the Siege of Pembroke, Battle of Preston.

Colonel John Moore

John Moore was born into one of the oldest noble Moore families in England in 1599. By the early 1640s, John Moore (who was by now a Member of Parliament for Liverpool) was heavily involved with the early shipping trade, forging connections in Barbados. When English civil war broke out in England in 1642, Moore pledged his allegiance to the Roundhead Parliamentarians as did most of Liverpool's burgesses, who were largely of Puritan stock. The nobles and gentry formed the bulk of the Cavaliers (who had control of both Liverpool castle and tower), including the mayor, John Walker. The Castle and the township was handed over to Lord Derby for the Royalists.

In May 1643, however, John Moore and his Parliamentarian men set about routing the castle, which they succeeded, suffering only 7 dead to the Royalists' 80 dead and 300 prisoners. The Lancashire Royalist faction collapsed soon after. After the castle had been taken, John Moore assumed control of both it and the area that it encompassed, taking the title of Governor of Liverpool for himself. Cromwell rewarded him with the rank of Colonel in his Parliamentarian army and also making him Parliament's vice-admiral of Cheshire and Lancashire. Moore's victory was not to be long lived however, and Liverpool was routed from underneath him on June 13, 1644 when the Royalist Prince Rupert of the Rhine and his army of 10,000 forced an entry into the city around the area of Old Hall Street. The Parliamentarians put up a strong defense, and they took the lives of some 1,500 Royalists.

By the time that Prince Rupert reached the City itself, John Moore and the remaining Parliamentary troops had already left the city via the Pool. When Sir John Meldrum's Parliamentary forces recaptured the city six months later, John Moore found himself back in charge as governor. Moore was a supporter of pride's purge and, as well as helping to organize security arrangements at King Charles' trial. He was a signatory of the King's death warrant in 1649.In 1649, Moore fought in Ireland against James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde and became governor of Dublin. He died of a fever there in 1650.

The Siege of Lathorn House

When Fairfax arrived at Lathom House in February 1644, the Countess had made every effort to conceal the strength of the castle's fortifications. Fairfax demanded that the Countess surrender Lathom House to him. She asked for a week to consider his offer, and then insisted that it was only appropriate that he visit her at Lathom House for further negotiations. He was received as an honored guest, but the entire household categorically rejected his terms for surrendering. He gave her two more days to consider her situation. The emissary sent two days later was scornfully dismissed. The siege began with 2,000 Parliamentary soldiers (500 cavalry and 1,500 infantry) against a garrison of 300.

The fortifications of Lathom House consisted of: Outer walls and embankments six feet thick An eight-yard moat Nine towers, each with six cannons, three pointing in either direction, and the Eagle Tower providing an excellent overview of the battlefield In addition, the castle was at the lowest point in the middle of an open expanse that allowed superb views of the enemy's activities. Charlotte had assembled a militia of seasoned marksmen who were able to inflict significant losses by sniping. John Seacome, an 18th-century historian of the House of Stanley quoted from another account A true and genuine account of the famous and ever memorable siege of Lathom-House in the County of Lancaster: upon a flat, upon a moorish, springy, and spumous ground ; was at the time of the siege encompassed by a strong wall of two yards thick.

Upon the wall were nine towers flanking each other, and in every tower were six pieces of ordnance, that played three the one way and three the other. Within the wall was a moat, eight yards wide and two yards deep; upon the brink of the moat, between the wall and the graff, was a strong row of palisadoes surrounding the whole, and, to add to these securities, there was a high tower, called the Eagle Tower, in the midst of the house, surrounding (surmounting?) all the rest ; and the gatehouse was also a strong and high building, with a strong. tower on each side of it; and in the entrance to the first court, upon the top of these towers, were placed the best and choicest marksmen, who had been accustomed to attend the Earl in his field sports, with their fowling-pieces, which they levelled at the enemy, marking particularly the officers wherever they appeared in their trenches.

Nature seemed to have formed the house for a stronghold. The situation of the house might be compared to the palm of a man's hand-flat in the middle and covered with rising ground around it, so that during the siege the enemy was never able to raise a battery against it, or to make a single practicable breach in the wall. The works of the besiegers formed a line of circumvallation drawn round about the house at the distance of 60 or 100 or 200 yards from the wall, as best suited the ground, consisting of an open trench, a yard of ditch, and a yard of turf, with eight sconces raised in such places as might annoy the besieged in the sally, directs lateribus, and in some places staked and palisadoed.

The fortifications sustained continuous cannon and mortar fire with minimal damage. The Royalists launched several successful sorties to disrupt Parliamentary efforts to set up batteries. As a result, Parliamentary forces were unable to establish any major artillery positions against the castle, and the army refused to replenish those guns that were lost or spiked during the sorties. Morale among the Roundheads also suffered greatly as the besieged shot soldiers and engineers on the battlefield.

Nevertheless, Fairfax persisted in demanding that Charlotte surrender to his forces, going so far as to obtain a letter from Lord Stanley asking for safe passage for her. She refused to surrender under any terms, rebuking messengers in increasingly disdainful tones. After one particularly audacious sortie in late April that destroyed several Roundhead positions, Fairfax declared a day of fasting and prayer in his camp. One of the chaplains invoked the following verse from Jeremiah 50:14: Put yourselves in array against Babylon on every side: all ye that bend the bow, shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the Lord. Captain Hector Schofield, a messenger from Colonel Alexander Rigby of the Roundheads, arrived to offer Charlotte an honorable surrender.

She threatened to hang him from the tower gates, then asked him to convey the following while she tore the message: Carry this answer back to Rigby, and tell that insolent rebel, he shall have neither persons, goods, nor house. When our strength and provisions are spent, we shall find a fire more merciful than Rigby; and then, if the providence of God prevent it not, my goods and house shall burn in his sight; and myself, children, and soldiers, rather than fall into his hands will seal our religion and loyalty in the same flames.
A similar ultimatum issued by Rigby on 23 May prompted Charlotte to respond: "The mercies of the wicked are cruel .... unless they treated with her lord, they should never take her or any of her friends alive".

The siege was lifted on the night of 27 May as the Royalist general Prince Rupert approached Lathom with thousands of cavalry and infantry. Charlotte and her household departed for the Isle of Man, leaving the care of Lathom House to Colonel Edward Rawstorne. Second Siege After the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Marston Moor, which was fought 2 July 1644, the north of England was largely under Parliamentary control apart from areas close to Royalist garrisons such as Lathom House. The next year (1645), in July, 4,000 Parliamentary troops returned to begin the second siege. Their commander Colonel Peter Egerton made Ormskirk his headquarters while his men encamped on Aughton Moss (or Aughton Moor), near Aughton Mill. Trenchfield House, on the site of this encampment, still retains the name.

The garrison did not capitulate quickly, but when it became clear that no relief could be expected, and supplies were running short, famine forced Colonel Rawstorne's hand and he surrender at discretion to Colonel Egerton on 2 December 1645. The fall of Lathom House was regarded as an event of the first importance by the Parliamentary party. Besides the material gain of twelve pieces of cannon and a large store of arms and ammunition, the Republicans had achieved a great moral triumph in the fall of the famous royalist house, and an order was issued by the House of Commons "for the ministers about London to give public thanks to God, on the next Lord's Day, for its surrender".

Lieutenant Colonel James More (or Mure)

Lieutenant Colonel James More (or Mure) served in the Earl of Denbigh's Regiment of Foot of the Parliamentarian forces in the first English civil war. The regiment was first raised in July 1643 in London; in which they recuited from areas in London and Warwickshire. In the following year of 1644; Lieutenant Colonel James More fought at the following engagements: Siege of Rushall Hall ( May), Siege of Dudley Castle ( June), Battle of Tipton Green ( June), The Storming and skirmish at Oswestry. By July, the regiment left the garrison at Wem many officers and men drift away to other commands, and by March 1645 remains of regiment disband at Shrewsbury.