Azincourt 1415

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Yesterday, I saw a very interesting Discovery Channel historical program about the Battle of Azincourt. It was made by British television (I don't think it was BBC) and it was a study by a team of several British specialized historians and technicians. Their goal was to evaluate and research the causes that led to the events on that battle.

Besides historians, the team had geologists, geographers, metalurgic engineers, physicists and even crowd behavioural analysts. Add to that, of course, a Longbow practiccioner.

The historians researched the reasons that led Henry V to bring an army mainly formed of Longbowmen. Including the fact that he "pawned" (sp?) the Crown jewels and the differences in cost between a Knight and a Longbowmen. They also analysed several apparently unrelated factors as the medieval routine of hostage taking and chivalrous behaviour.

The metalurgic engineers and the physicists studied and compared several examples of medieval period armour as well as Longbow shooting and impact effects. The armours ranged from armour made little after 1350, to the ones made in the early 15th century. Several forging techniques were studied, including the forging of Bodkin arrowheads. These specialists even made kinetical energy measurements of the LB speed and impact power, on a machine used for impact tests.

The geologists concentrated mainly in extracting and analyzing Azincourt 1415 earth. They excavated and collected samples of the 1415 ground. Then they simulated the rainy conditions on the day of battle. They measured consistency, superficial stress, viscosity, etc... Then they dipped several types of materials in this mud (effectivelly clay mud) and compared extration and mobility results.

Finally, the geographers and crowd behavioural analysts studied the terrain features and deployement employed, keeping in attention the several finds about terrain consistency.

Their conclusions were the following:

1-The metalurgic specialists noted that there was a steep difference between armour quality in late 14th century and early 15th century. Specially, stopping properties between low-quality and high-quality armour. In general, the oldest and lowest quality armour was very brittle and fragile to perfurating tips. They were almost all built around low-quality steel (effectivelly iron). In opposition, the best armours were of surprisingly good quality and were made of a very well worked steel alloy. As Bodkin tips were made of iron and not steel (due to cost), the impact results of the LB weren't therefore surprising. The worst armours were perfurated and the best were only dented (the arrow tips bended on impact). So, accordingly, only the worst equipped French soldiers and squires were vulnerable to the LB. Most of the Knights were unafected, but the horses of those that fought on horseback were vulnerable.

2-The historians refered several organizational factors that contributed to the French defeat. The rivalries between the nobles about the plan of attack, their obsession to get English noblemens as their prisioneers, bypassing the "unworthy" but dangerous yeomen and getting flanked in the process.

3-The geologists found a crucial and somewhat unlooked for factor: the terrain consistency. In the day of the battle, that terrain (mainly consisting of water absorbing particles) turned into a thick, cement-like mud. The surface tension analysis revealed surprising results. Polished surfaces (like metal plates) that had been dipped in the mud, had extremelly high extraction-force values. Cloth on the other hand, had extraction-force values 4 to 5 times smaller due to it's rugosity. Leather had intermediate extraction-force values. Accordingly, if a knight fell into the ground, he would have to make 4 to 5 times the effort of a peasent to push himself out of the mud. This without counting the extra weight of the armour.

4-The geographers worked with the crowd behavioural analysts in regard to the French army deployement analysis. Crowd computer simulations were made using a 3d map taken from GPS data. The main crowd behavioural analyst noticed that all features for a "crowd disaster" (in events like in concerts, stadiums, etc...) were in place. The displacement of the French army, when it moved to face the "entrenched" English army, suffered a funnelling due to the particular geographical features. This, together with the terrain consistency, caused a deorganization of the ranks, as well as the falls of some soldiers. These falls reinforced the deorganization, thus forming a vicious cycle. He stated that, in these conditions, it was impossible not to have deaths due to trempling and crushing. In fact the simulation concurred. It sustained that many soldiers must have died without even reaching anywhere near the English Longbowmen range.

I was impressed by the amount of work and seriousness that these guys put up in their analysis.

For fun, I decided to make a survey here at the ORG. It is to share opinions about the TV show and it's conclusions, as well as for everyone to spill some more info (contradictory or not) that you may find relevant.

What do think?

[ShadesWolf]

French defeat with out a question.

They had numeric supremacy and should have easily won

[Red Peasant]

Good stuff Aymar. But did they also conclude that the English tactics added to this 'funnelling' effect? Surely, that was their intention as these tactical deployments had been developed over many years, since the wars with the Scots. If so, then Henry picked an optimum site for his defensive array based purely on experience, intuition and a general's eye for discerning the lie of the battlefield.

[monkian]

I think you have something against Britsh longbowmen as you seem quite keen to discredit Agincourt as a great victory.

[CBR]

French Defeat...A hell of a mess difficult choices heh.

I havent seen it but do remember some discussions about this program, IIRC the iron/steel tipped Bodkin points were debatable. But most of its conclusions is pretty much the same as what several historians have come up with earlier on.

Henry did use the terrain avaliable to his full advantage but the French also neglected their own plan for the attack (made by Marshal Boucicault and Constable d'Albret)

Elements of it were used but it had not been adapted for the bigger army as more troops had arrived after the plan was drawn up. And their missile troops were completely left out.

It was a great victory for the English, but that doesnt always mean the winner was the one who had brilliant tactics. The Longbowmen did have their fair share of the victory, by attacking the disordered and exhausted mass of French Men at Arms in the flanks.

And their stakes and longbows meant their own flanks were protected from the French mounted attacks.


CBR

[ShadesWolf]

A few notes from my web site on the campaign...

Henry joined his invasion fleet at Southampton. It was the afternoon of August 11, when the king boarded the Trinity Royal, his 500 ton flagship, and the largest in the fleet. The ships sailed, and three days later dropped anchor just of the town of Halfleur.

The invasion army numbered about 10,000 men - 2000 knights and men-at-arms, and 8000 archers. However, the army also included the royal household, including 75 gunners, 15 musicians, 6 bowyers, 13 chaplains, 12 armourers, 60 grooms and 20 surgeons. There were three kings of Arms - Guinne, Ireland and Leicester. Unlike the armies of Edward III, there were few, if any Gascon soldiers, for they were busy recapturing the castles of Saintonge and threatening the port of La Rochelle.

A detailed chronology of the siege is difficult to establish. In a letter to Bordeaux, Henry expressed confidence that he would have won the town and be in Paris in another week. He was to be proven wrong. By the middle of September, the outcome of the siege was finely balanced, but there was no sign of relief from the main French army, and supplies were growing short within the town. Unaided by any relief force, Harfleur yielded to the invaders on September 22. The siege was over, but dysentery continued, and the desertions, for which this opening phase of the campaign was remarkable.

Henry treated the inhabitants much like Edward III had treated the people of Calais in 1346, forcing the leading burghers to kneel at his feet in submission before accepting the keys. The knights were released on parole to gather ransom, and the towns' people who were prepared to swear allegiance to Henry were allowed to remain, while the rest were ordered to depart. Like Calais, Harfleur was to become an English town, a beachhead in France for English armies.

Henry's original plan was to have had a swift siege at Harfleur, leading to the capture of a major port, this would be followed by either a march up the Siene valley to Paris or by a great chevauchee across France to winter quarters in Bordeaux. The question was now, what next ? Should Henry march directly on Paris before the French could co-ordinate their strengths, or should he return to England for the winter and then return again in the spring.

Henry's belief in his destiny was strong; he decided to march north to Calais. He would make a chevauchee, carrying his banner of France and England through the country to show that the rightful heir of France could march free in his own lands, but this time he would march without destruction.

On Monday October 8th, Henry's small force set out from Harfleur. It had a weeks rations. This should have been enough for the hundred-mile march to Calais, but things were not to turn out as expected. The route Henry's army took can still be followed quite easily on metalled roads, which in 1415 were muddy tracks. They began by marching inland to Montevilliers, where they turned northwest for the coast and the port of Fecamp. The army marched in three divisions, the vanguard led by Sir Gilbert Umfraville, the king himself commanded the centre, while the rearguard was commanded by the kings cousin, the duke of York, assisted by the Earl of Oxford.

On October 22 they reached Acheaux and 23 October Frevent, crossing the Ternoise to Blangy, twelve miles away, they set scouts ahead to spy the land. Within half an hour one of the scouts came galloping back. Henry was informed that the enemy lay only a couple of miles to his right. There was no battle that day, the French moved off northwards to Agincourt were they made camp for the night. Henry followed and setup camp in the villiage of Maisoncelles. The army had marched for 17days with only one days rest, they had covered 260 miles, averaging a little over 15 miles a day.

The great battle, which must decide the future of France, would therefore take place on October 25 1415, on the feast of St Crispin. During the night it rained, most of Henrys men spent the night huddled under dripping hedges. Half an mile away the French were celebrating their successful interception and anticipating their victory on the morrow.

THE DAY OF THE BATTLE


http://www.100yearswar.co.uk/agincourtlarge.jpg

Henry, at first light, went forward to check the battlefield. After studying the terrain for a while he became more optimistic. He noticed, the ground between Agincourt and Tramecourt was too cramped to permit a full deployment of the French force. The battlefield occupied an expanse of ploughed land approximately three-quarters of a mile wide; all of it open ground but hemmed in by demesne woods of the castle of Agincourt to the English left, and the manor of Tramecourt to the English right. The battlefield has not changed a great deal in the last 500 years, and while it offered perfect ground for cavalry, it also provided the English archers - some 6,000 strong - with a clear field of fire. Into the same space between the woods, on both sides of the Calais road, the French had crammed 30-40,000 armed men and there entourage all eager to view the defeat of the English and capture of their King
Even at a distance, and before either army was fully deployed, it was clear that the French army was not under any firm command. Dismounted men-at-arms, filled the centre of the French line with mounted knights on the wings, but everyone wanted to be in the front rank, and as time passed, the French army coalesced into one vast formation. The French army, all of the great lords, vying to be in the first battle, which alone already contained 8000 knights was in close formation, and more knights were still arriving to wedge their retinues into the ranks as the morning wore on. The English used their usual three divisions: men-at-arms four deep; the archers in thick wedges on either flank of the army, and in the intervals behind the battles.


Both armies held their ground and watched each other across the plough land for the next four hours. Henry could not afford to wait. His army had not had a proper meal for days, and his men were cold, ragged and with sickness much enfeebled. Some time after eleven o'clock, he ordered the army to advance.

The English army advanced across the fields to within easy bowshot of the French line, the archers planted their stakes, drew their arrows and fired. Six thousand arrows thrashed into the close-packed ranks of the French army, throwing them into instant confusion

Hundreds of men fell, dead or wounded. The flanking cavalry squadrons which came charging across the French front exposed their horses to the arrow storm, the maddened steeds galloped among the central division of the French army as it began to charge against the English line. It is doubtful whether the French cavalry, now seriously undermanned and barely 600 strong, due to a number of them wondering off, could have got up much speed over recently ploughed, rain-soaked ground. Just how slippery the surface was is a major question.

The half-blinded French ranks of men-at-arms were already in great confusion when they collided with the English. The first ranks of both armies lurched together in a welter of shields and swords and spears, hacking and stabbing at each other. Many of the archers had put aside their bows and joined in the hand-to-hand battle with swords or there favourite weapons.

The French dead were soon piled up three deep before the English line and within half an hours of the first arrow, all order had been lost. The Duke of Alencon was taken prisoner, Charles d'Albret was dead and the Duke of Orleans and Marshal Boucicaut were later captured. The Duke of Brabant, came galloping onto the field late, and was quickly knocked from his saddle, by a knot of English Archers and held for ransom.

The first French division was now forced back on to the second. But this strengthening of the French line seems to have had no effect. It merely produced more of the same results. The third division, looking on with horror at the defeat of the first two, made no move. Some indeed, being mounted, rode off in flight. Some of the luckier men-at-arms from the first two battles were helped to their horses and so escaped.

By eleven forty-five it seemed that the battle was over. A great wall of French dead lay across the battlefield. Many more wounded and dead lay to the north

All was not done, however, for the Count of Merle and the Lord of Fauquemburges had gathered a force of several hundred men-at-arms and joined by hundreds more, still willing to fight, they now began to lead another advance on the English army, gathering up more Frenchmen as they came. This action provoked a great tragedy, for the King ordered his men to kill all their prisoners and return at once to there battle lines. This deed done, the English formed up the advanced again across the battlefield, scattering the Count of Merle's half-hearted charge and as they reached the French camp and began to loot it, they saw beyond it the fleeing backs of the Great French Army and the open road to Calais. No one knows how many died at Agincourt.

Medieval chroniclers take little note of common folk, but even the list of Lords and Knights assembled by the chronicler Rene de Belleval makes a sad litany, and provides a clue to the destruction wrought amongst the nobility of France. The list goes on for pages. The dead were piled into grave pits, the site of which is marked by a stand of trees that still lies besides the Calais road. A fair estimate of French losses would be around 8,000 men killed, and 1600 taken prisoner.

When the bad news of Agincourt reached the Court of King Charles, it plunged him into another bout of insanity. English losses are unknown, but they were certainly small.

The highest estimate allows for no more than 500 dead. There is also an alternative idea of why Henry killed the prisoners, this being a report was brought to Henry that his camp was being attacked. Exactly when or how this was carried out is far from clear.

The conventional story is that a local lord, Isembart d'Agincourt and several other men-at-arms leading 600 peasants, of their own volition launched a raid on the camp. Certainly several precious items were looted from the camp. It was later a condition of the ransom of Ralph de Gaucourt that he recover these items. He was successful in part. The story also goes that d'Agincourt was afterwards imprisoned by the Duke of Burgundy for this disgraceful act, despite giving a present of a sword to his son.

THE OUTCOME OF THE BATTLE
Why did Henry not march straight to Paris to enforce his justified claim to be called 'King of England and of france.' Simply, it was to late in the year, his army was battered and out of supplys. It is true to say the French had suffered a major defeat, but a city does not fall to a few thousand men without siege equipment. It in fact took another five years to bring Charles VI to the Treaty of Troyes, by which Henry married his daughter Katherine and was recognized as the heir to the French throne. Territory is not won by open battles but by long sieges, like those of Caen and Rouen. The main result of the 1415 campaign was the capture of Harfleur, as another base from which Normandy could be attacked, this was the necessary foundation for a long-term strategy of conquest.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ April 28 2004,00:57)]French defeat with out a question.

They had numeric supremacy and should have easily won
In fact, the crowd behavioural analysts say that the numerical superiority helped the defeat of the French, creating increased confusion in the french ranks.

In a dry battle maybe that wouldn't be such a problem.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ April 28 2004,04:25)]Good stuff Aymar.
Thanks Glad you've enjoyed it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif



Quote[/b] ]But did they also conclude that the English tactics added to this 'funnelling' effect? Surely, that was their intention as these tactical deployments had been developed over many years, since the wars with the Scots. If so, then Henry picked an optimum site for his defensive array based purely on experience, intuition and a general's eye for discerning the lie of the battlefield.
Yes, they did. But they prefered to focus in other explanations to explain the sheer scale of the enormous French disaster. I've only mentioned the lesser-known or new conclusions in this program. The English tactical prowess was never in question.

I'm also well aware of the lessons the English learned at Bannockburn... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (monkian @ April 28 2004,06:01)]I think you have something against Britsh longbowmen as you seem quite keen to discredit Agincourt as a great victory.
Why do you say that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif I'm only quoting their conclusions, not mine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ April 28 2004,07:02)]French Defeat...A hell of a mess difficult choices heh.
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif I had to give you all some variety of choises, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif



Quote[/b] ]I havent seen it but do remember some discussions about this program, IIRC the iron/steel tipped Bodkin points were debatable. But most of its conclusions is pretty much the same as what several historians have come up with earlier on.
Yes, that's the same program. I wasn't aware of the Bodkin debate though. Their conclusion seemed straightforward. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif



Quote[/b] ]Henry did use the terrain avaliable to his full advantage but the French also neglected their own plan for the attack (made by Marshal Boucicault and Constable d'Albret)
Yes, indeed. They've also mentioned it. Then all the French barons started squabling with one another and all hell broke loose... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif



Quote[/b] ]Elements of it were used but it had not been adapted for the bigger army as more troops had arrived after the plan was drawn up. And their missile troops were completely left out.
Yes, I remember that they've mentioned the total lack of use of the French crossbowmen.



Quote[/b] ]It was a great victory for the English, but that doesnt always mean the winner was the one who had brilliant tactics. The Longbowmen did have their fair share of the victory, by attacking the disordered and exhausted mass of French Men at Arms in the flanks.
Yes, I've mentioned it above.



Quote[/b] ]And their stakes and longbows meant their own flanks were protected from the French mounted attacks.
Yeap, the stakes, caltrops and such devices, really secured the English against envelopment (specially cavalary).

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

We battered the French at Agincourt, at the subsequent battles at Verneuil and Cravant. It was only the new artillery and a united France a peace with Burgundy which won them the war.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 28 2004,15:50)]Yes, that's the same program. I wasn't aware of the Bodkin debate though. Their conclusion seemed straightforward. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif
Well I'll try and see if I can find some info on that discussion.


Quote[/b] ]Yes, I remember that they've mentioned the total lack of use of the French crossbowmen.

Yeah at least one source mentions 4000 archers and 1500 crossbowmen that basically were pushed back and not used at all. IIRC Paris also offered 6000? crossbowmen but the army was already big and they were confident of victory so they delined the offer.


CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ April 28 2004,18:51)]We battered the French at Agincourt, at the subsequent battles at Verneuil and Cravant. It was only the new artillery and a united France a peace with Burgundy which won them the war.
And "you" were battered at Patay in 1429 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The French did have 2 culverins at Formigny 1450, but that battle is a good example of the weakness of keeping the defensive formation that the English deployed in.

Outnumbering the first French army but not attacking it (except the attack to capture the 2 culverins) so the second French army could come upon the English flank. By waiting and only doing limited attacks/skirmishing the first army was still on the battlefield when reinforcements came.

The French army turned into a much better war machine as discipline was improved. The result was that the "easy" English victories, even when heavily outnumbered, couldnt be achieved anymore.

The use of artillery meant that sieges were short and the French took back many cities/castles in no time. The limited English resources basically stood no chance when France no longer were divided.


CBR

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ April 28 2004,13:12)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 28 2004,15:50)]Yes, that's the same program. I wasn't aware of the Bodkin debate though. Their conclusion seemed straightforward. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif
Well I'll try and see if I can find some info on that discussion.
Great Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Yes, I remember that they've mentioned the total lack of use of the French crossbowmen.

Yeah at least one source mentions 4000 archers and 1500 crossbowmen that basically were pushed back and not used at all. IIRC Paris also offered 6000? crossbowmen but the army was already big and they were confident of victory so they delined the offer.
Talk about blunders... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ April 28 2004,07:13)]A few notes from my web site on the campaign...

Henry joined his invasion fleet at Southampton. It was the afternoon of August 11, when the king boarded the Trinity Royal, his 500 ton flagship, and the largest in the fleet. The ships sailed, and three days later dropped anchor just of the town of Halfleur.

The invasion army numbered about 10,000 men - 2000 knights and men-at-arms, and 8000 archers. However, the army also included the royal household, including 75 gunners, 15 musicians, 6 bowyers, 13 chaplains, 12 armourers, 60 grooms and 20 surgeons. There were three kings of Arms - Guinne, Ireland and Leicester. Unlike the armies of Edward III, there were few, if any Gascon soldiers, for they were busy recapturing the castles of Saintonge and threatening the port of La Rochelle.

A detailed chronology of the siege is difficult to establish. In a letter to Bordeaux, Henry expressed confidence that he would have won the town and be in Paris in another week. He was to be proven wrong. By the middle of September, the outcome of the siege was finely balanced, but there was no sign of relief from the main French army, and supplies were growing short within the town. Unaided by any relief force, Harfleur yielded to the invaders on September 22. The siege was over, but dysentery continued, and the desertions, for which this opening phase of the campaign was remarkable.

Henry treated the inhabitants much like Edward III had treated the people of Calais in 1346, forcing the leading burghers to kneel at his feet in submission before accepting the keys. The knights were released on parole to gather ransom, and the towns' people who were prepared to swear allegiance to Henry were allowed to remain, while the rest were ordered to depart. Like Calais, Harfleur was to become an English town, a beachhead in France for English armies.

Henry's original plan was to have had a swift siege at Harfleur, leading to the capture of a major port, this would be followed by either a march up the Siene valley to Paris or by a great chevauchee across France to winter quarters in Bordeaux. The question was now, what next ? Should Henry march directly on Paris before the French could co-ordinate their strengths, or should he return to England for the winter and then return again in the spring.

Henry's belief in his destiny was strong; he decided to march north to Calais. He would make a chevauchee, carrying his banner of France and England through the country to show that the rightful heir of France could march free in his own lands, but this time he would march without destruction.

On Monday October 8th, Henry's small force set out from Harfleur. It had a weeks rations. This should have been enough for the hundred-mile march to Calais, but things were not to turn out as expected. The route Henry's army took can still be followed quite easily on metalled roads, which in 1415 were muddy tracks. They began by marching inland to Montevilliers, where they turned northwest for the coast and the port of Fecamp. The army marched in three divisions, the vanguard led by Sir Gilbert Umfraville, the king himself commanded the centre, while the rearguard was commanded by the kings cousin, the duke of York, assisted by the Earl of Oxford.

On October 22 they reached Acheaux and 23 October Frevent, crossing the Ternoise to Blangy, twelve miles away, they set scouts ahead to spy the land. Within half an hour one of the scouts came galloping back. Henry was informed that the enemy lay only a couple of miles to his right. There was no battle that day, the French moved off northwards to Agincourt were they made camp for the night. Henry followed and setup camp in the villiage of Maisoncelles. The army had marched for 17days with only one days rest, they had covered 260 miles, averaging a little over 15 miles a day.

The great battle, which must decide the future of France, would therefore take place on October 25 1415, on the feast of St Crispin. During the night it rained, most of Henrys men spent the night huddled under dripping hedges. Half an mile away the French were celebrating their successful interception and anticipating their victory on the morrow.

THE DAY OF THE BATTLE
(coming next...)



http://www.100yearswar.co.uk/agincourtlarge.jpg
Awesome post, most respected moderator ShadesWolf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Please continue...

[ShadesWolf]

the final part has been added above.

For more info on the 100 years war - please visit my website and forum.

100 Years war.co.uk (http://www.100yearswar.co.uk/index.htm)

[The Wizard]

Yes, I saw it when I first came here, very nice piece of work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif



~Wiz

[DeadRunner]

Awesome webpage ShadesWolf.

The French general must been drunk to make a mess like that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif our Henry had a good advisor.
I know that the camp wasn´t dry that was one of the reasons that french cav wasn´t efective,and one thing that the french had advantage was many of Henry troops where sick.

This chapter Reminde me the battle of Aljubarrota where portuguses army win the Spanish army,the portuguese army was smaller than the Spainish army.

maybe the key is a good field comander with a great understanding of military strategy

[el_slapper]

Commentaire[/b] (DeadRunner @ Avril 29 2004,15:10)]Awesome webpage ShadesWolf.

The French general must been drunk to make a mess like that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif our Henry had a good advisor.
I know that the camp wasn´t dry that was one of the reasons that french cav wasn´t efective,and one thing that the french had advantage was many of Henry troops where sick.

This chapter Reminde me the battle of Aljubarrota where portuguses army win the Spanish army,the portuguese army was smaller than the Spainish army.

maybe the key is a good field comander with a great understanding of military strategy
there was nothing like a general, you know. Control over armies like in MTW is not really accurate in the era. Those stupid knights seeked for glory, & directly rode to death & defeat. Bar none. English had managed to build some defences, but static defences are built to be avoided(Maginot Line, anyone?).

The extermination of prisoners was a good news for France. Less morons to make children. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (DeadRunner @ April 29 2004,09:10)]Awesome webpage ShadesWolf.

The French general must been drunk to make a mess like that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif our Henry had a good advisor.
I know that the camp wasn´t dry that was one of the reasons that french cav wasn´t efective,and one thing that the french had advantage was many of Henry troops where sick.

This chapter Reminde me the battle of Aljubarrota where portuguses army win the Spanish army,the portuguese army was smaller than the Spainish army.

maybe the key is a good field comander with a great understanding of military strategy
Bravo Fellow compatriot

Yes, Aljubarrota is very similar in tactics and result to Azincourt. But was fought in the dry.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (el_slapper @ April 29 2004,13:33)]The extermination of prisoners was a good news for France. Less morons to make children. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Well, that's a bit harsh Although Henry was still afraid of loosing the battle, that was a cruel decision...

[ShadesWolf]

Quote[/b] ]Although Henry was still afraid of loosing the battle, that was a cruel decision

It was cruel based on todays standards, but this was a differnet time and it was self preservation

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ April 29 2004,07:07)]the final part has been added above.

For more info on the 100 years war - please visit my website and forum.

100 Years war.co.uk (http://www.100yearswar.co.uk/index.htm)
As I've previously said: great post, ShadesWolf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ April 29 2004,13:50)]
Quote[/b] ]Although Henry was still afraid of loosing the battle, that was a cruel decision

It was cruel based on todays standards, but this was a differnet time and it was self preservation

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ April 29 2004,13:50)]
Quote[/b] ]Although Henry was still afraid of loosing the battle, that was a cruel decision

It was cruel based on todays standards, but this was a differnet time and it was self preservation
Yes, cruelty was just business as usual, as in most situations during the Middle Ages... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-behead2.gif

[DeadRunner]

quoting El_slapper
..."there was nothing like a general, you know. Control over armies like in MTW is not really accurate in the era. Those stupid knights seeked for glory, & directly rode to death & defeat"...

Yep i know that Medieval wars is like pub fights,and i agree with you with fool kings in quest of glory,that remind me a dark time for Portugal when the %&%$% of our King D Sebastião go to war in Africa and he have the amazing idea to fight without strategy war type running to the enemy screaming .well i say only that Portugal stayed under Spanish control with D Felipe 2 of Spain and 1 of Portugal to D Felipe 4 and 3 of Portugal.

Not only medieval era was cruel m8 remember what Roman Empire do in the End of 3 Punic war the total destruction of Cartago and the turn all the survivors in slaves ,and like this we have the troy egg too.

[Beirut]

Ah, my favorite battle. I would have loved to have seen that program.

I say it was an English victory. But only by a slim margin. The French forced the battle, the English were weak and sick and outnumbered. And the English not only won, but won greatly. Those qualities, IMHO, allow the honour to be given to the English.

But Lord, oh yes, the French mucked it up completely.

I'm re-reading Desmond Seward's biography of Henry V. No doubt, ol'King Henry was a real bastard. He did things that would have made Stalin wince.

I read John Keegan's account of Agincourt, which was excellent, but if you fellas have any recomendations for other good books I would be happy to hear about them.

[ShadesWolf]

For a military look at the overall HYW conflict then see LT-Col Alfred H.Burne books

- The Crecy War
- The Agincourt war

The books cover the entire 100 years war but from more of a military point of view.

As for other books my fav is Jonathan Sumptons books, unfortunatly we are only up to about 1360 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

As for agincourt alone

- Mathew Bennet/ Jeff Burn - Osprey Military (Agincourt 1415)
- Chris Rothero - The armies of Agincourt - Men at arms - Osprey)

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (DeadRunner @ April 30 2004,06:00)]quoting El_slapper
..."there was nothing like a general, you know. Control over armies like in MTW is not really accurate in the era. Those stupid knights seeked for glory, & directly rode to death & defeat"...

Yep i know that Medieval wars is like pub fights,and i agree with you with fool kings in quest of glory,that remind me a dark time for Portugal when the %&%$% of our King D Sebastião go to war in Africa and he have the amazing idea to fight without strategy war type running to the enemy screaming .well i say only that Portugal stayed under Spanish control with D Felipe 2 of Spain and 1 of Portugal to D Felipe 4 and 3 of Portugal.

Not only medieval era was cruel m8 remember what Roman Empire do in the End of 3 Punic war the total destruction of Cartago and the turn all the survivors in slaves ,and like this we have the troy egg too.
I should have said Medieval and before, although even in the 20th century we saw some of the most cruel behaviours ever... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-no.gif

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
"War is hell."
_