Agincourt 1415

[ShadesWolf]

The Battle of Agincourt - 25 October 1415.

With a number of good books coming out on the 100 years war I thought it was about time to share this wonderful subject with my fellow Org people.

Link to a RAM article on the battle HISTORY In Our Time
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/ram/inourtime_20040916.ram)

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

Lets please discuss

[The_Doctor]

A great battle.

I like the fact that Henry V fought on foot with his men.

The only bad thing is that it was Pyric(sp) victory.

Henry got the mad French king's daughter and had a son that went mad (inherited from his mad Grandad?) which caused the Wars of the Roses, which lead to the French winning the 100 years war.

Is that accurate?

[ShadesWolf]

Henry got the mad French king's daughter and had a son that went mad

That is a very interest question/ point. We would need to look at if the French Kings Grandfather was also mad.

[The_Doctor]

I found this. The website says that Charles VI probably had bipolar disorder, which a genetic disease, so Edward VI could have inherited it.


Recent genetic research
Bipolar disorder is considered to be primarily a genetically caused disorder. The monozygotic concordance rate for the disorder is 70%. This means that if a person has the disorder, an identical twin has a 70% likelihood of having the disorder as well. Relatives of persons with Bipolar Disorder also have an increased incidence of having unipolar depression.

In 2003, a group of American and Canadian researchers published a paper that used gene linkage techniques to identify a mutation in the GRK3 gene as a possible cause of up to 10% of cases of bipolar disorder. This gene is associated with a kinase enzyme called G protein receptor kinase 3, which appears to be involved in dopamine metabolism, and may provide a possible target for new drugs for bipolar disorder.

[Brenus]

Not really.
The Englih lost IN BATTLE, like they said during the Middle Ages :book:
The French won the 100 years war because a guerrilla tactic developed by Du Gesclin who understood the French can't beat the Long Bow and reconquered almost all the French Territory in 1377.
The French forgot and went to Agincourt in 1415.
The war carried on with various defeat and successes for each side.
The turning point is roughly in 1427 (battle of Montargis), when the French started a new offensive to regain territories lost after Agincourt and the treaty of Troyes (1420).
In 1429, Joan of Arc arrived and boosted the moral of the French.
In 1432, in Lagny sur Marne, the French defeated the English who abandoned their artillery.
In 1435, a treaty signed by the Burgundies (who until now supported the English King for the throne of France) and the King of France created a very difficult position for the English, who are allowed to leave Paris…
In 1441-1442, the French regained most of the French territory, after few reverses, mainly from Talbot.
In 1449, the English broke the truce in attacking the Breton fortress of Fougeres.
It was the beginning of the end for the English.

The English got to know what they did to the French: a weapon which cancelled the superiority of their armies. The Long Bows killed the Chivalry; the cannons killed the Long Bows.
The development of artillery trapped the English. Either their group their bowmen grouped to face the French Chivalry and becoming a sitting ducks for artillery, either they spread and become vulnerable to the knights.

Last battles.
Formigny (15 April 1450)
French commander(s):
Clermont with 3,000 men, and
Richemont with 1,200 men = 4,200

English commander (s): Kyriell with 3,800+ men.
Casualties:
French: 200
English: 3774

Castilon (17 July1453), the last battle of the 100 Years War
French commander(s): Jean Bureau with 4,000-6,000 men, and
Jean de Blois Penthièvre with 1,000 men
Total: 5,000-7,000 men

English commander (s): John Talbot with 4,000 men
Casualties:
French: 100
English: 4000 (mostly wounded)

The English took a long time to relinquish Edward III's hope to acquire the French crown. The 1475 Truce of Picquigny between Edward IV and Louis XI was a cover to bribe the English off so that Louis could concentrate his struggle against Burgundy. In 1492, Henry VIII invaded France, and won a 'second battle of the spurs' (1513). He captured a few small towns and attempted to arrange with the Austrian Emperor a futile scheme to obtain the French crown. In 1558, the French captured Calais, England's last foothold in France. The English monarchs continued to call themselves 'king' or 'queen' of France until the 1802 Treaty of Amiens, after which the fleur-de-lis was removed from the royal arms of England

[King Henry V]

Err, I have got news for you, the Fleur de Lis still resides on the crest of the Royal Family.

[barocca]

the Longbow,
the actual arrow point (bodkin) was not armour piercing,
the metal the points were made from was softer and of inferior quality to the metal the french were using to make their armour
(it was on Discovery channel some time ago, they recovered a number of arrow heads from the site)

the longbow would have still been dangerous to the horses themselves though

many of the french dead at agincourt drowned in the mud, pressed down by the weight of the men behind them.
a massive army trying to cram into a bottleneck. (similar to the effect when a crowd "presses forwards" at sporting events and concerts)

a good choice of ground for Henry.

B.

[Meneldil]

The function of the Royal Coat of Arms is to identify the person who is Head of State. In respect of the United Kingdom, the Royal arms are borne only by the Sovereign.

They are used in many ways in connection with the administration and government of the country, for instance on coins, in churches and on public buildings. They are familiar to most people as they appear on the products and goods of Royal Warrant holders.

The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom have evolved over many years and reflect the history of the Monarchy and of the country.

In the design the shield shows the various royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: the three lions of England in the first and fourth quarters, the lion of Scotland in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third. It is surrounded by a garter bearing the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense ('Evil to him who evil thinks'), which symbolises the Order of the Garter, an ancient order of knighthood of which the Queen is Sovereign.

The shield is supported by the English lion and Scottish unicorn and is surmounted by the Royal crown. Below it appears the motto of the Sovereign, Dieu et mon droit ('God and my right'). The plant badges of the United Kingdom - rose, thistle and shamrock - are often displayed beneath the shield.

Separate Scottish and English quarterings of the Royal Arms originate from the Union of the Crown in 1603. The Scottish version of the Royal Coat of Arms shows the lion of Scotland in the first and fourth quarters, with that of England being in the second. The harp of Ireland is in the third quarter.

The mottoes read 'In defence' and 'No one will attack me with impunity'. From the times of the Stuart kings, the Scottish quarterings have been used for official purposes in Scotland (for example, on official buildings and official publications).

The special position of Wales as a Principality was recognised by the creation of the Prince of Wales long before the incorporation of the quarterings for Scotland and Ireland in the Royal Arms. The arms of the Prince of Wales show the arms of the ancient Principality in the centre as well as these quarterings.

Coats of Arms of members of the Royal Family are broadly similar to The Queen's with small differences to identify them.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page400.asp




http://www.eurohistory.com/main.htm
http://www.eurohistory.com/windsor.gif

Hum, I don't see any Fleur de Lys in any of the quarters

[barocca]

Err, I have got news for you, the Fleur de Lis still resides on the crest of the Royal Family.

ah - NO, it does not
http://www.fleurdelis.com/royal.htm

B.

[Brenus]

“a good choice of ground for Henry”: To choose your field is often decisive in Battle. You have to do it carefully.
Henry had to cancel the French Knights, so prevent them to deploy. Same tactic used by the Roman Governor General Seutonius Paulinus against Boudicca, Phillippe II, king of France at Bouvines (27 July 1214) against Otto V, Holly Roman Empire, Count Ferrand (Flemish) and Renaud Count of Boulogne and Earl of Salisburry.

No Fleur de Lys on British Cooat of Arms ~:)

[edyzmedieval]

the Longbow,
the actual arrow point (bodkin) was not armour piercing,

many of the french dead at agincourt drowned in the mud, pressed down by the weight of the men behind them.
a massive army trying to cram into a bottleneck. (similar to the effect when a crowd "presses forwards" at sporting events and concerts)

a good choice of ground for Henry.

B.

It was piercing only one type: Chain Mail Armour.

Indeed, King Henry V was a genius when chosing the ground for Agincourt.... France lost all of it's cream cavalry, the French Paladins, which in my opinion, were the best heavy cavalry, along with the Kilibanophoroi, in the Middle Ages.....

[Incongruous]

It was piercing only one type: Chain Mail Armour.

Well thats not quite true.
Although the Longbow cannot penetrate a flat pice of matal plate, which is exactly the same thickness as common medieval plate it can pierce it once it has been hammered into a breast plate, Greaves, Helmets and such.

[edyzmedieval]

You said half the answer....

This is a quote from a book:




The bodkin arrow was an important innovation that made archers of all types more effective against men wearing armor. The bodkin was simply a straight point intended to puncture, rather than a typical broad point intended to slice as it penetrated. The broad point was fine for hunting or use against unarmored enemies, but armor effectively dissipated it's energy. The bodkin concentrated it's power in the point and could penetrate any armor at sufficiently short range. The English Longbowmen at Agincourt lofted barragesof bodkin arrows down upon the dense ranks of French knights. The bodkins, aided by the force of gravity, penetrated helmets, shoulders, legs, and arms when they struck perpendicularly to the face of armor.



That's the story of the bodkin arrow.....

[Watchman]

They had to use the "plate-piercing" version of the bodkin then, not the long needle-tip one meant against mail. Hit plate with that one, and odds are it snaps. The anti-plate version was rather shorter and stubbier, more "massive" than "thin" - it not only needed a point, it also needed a point that survived the impact with the armour...

Or it could be that the guys who did the research for the museum I work in didn't know what they were writing about (there's a few crossbow specimen of the above there). But I mildly doubt it, seeing as how they're not the only ones saying that sort of thing.

Naw, unless they hit a visor or something the English longbowmen couldn't have done all that much archery-wise to the French men-at-arms, nevermind the dismounted ones (the two small cavarly wings were able to charge home against the longbowmen too, after all, but lack of numbers, the stake hedge and the muddy ground meant it didn't have much effect overall). But they sure could make the long march over the muddy field even more miserable, and every now and then an arrow scored a lucky hit and downed somebody who was then duly trampled flat by his fellows.

By what I've read of it the plan the original French commanders present drafted was quite sound, and would probably have worked. However, onche the king and the bulk of the troops turned up not only were the commanders outranked, but also the sheer numbers of warriors involved made any real control and coordination practically impossible - somewhat paradoxically actually diminishing the military power available. That's actually something of a trend in the HYW - the French didn't do too badly in small fights and skirmishes, but usually lost royally in major pitched battles.

'Course, once the King finally rammed through the Ordonnances du Roi and put the army on a much more disciplined and professional footing, plus had a good artillery arm created, things changed radically. The French didn't lose too many battles after that; goes to show the value of professionalism and battlefield control, which in any case had been the biggest advantages of the English from the start and were thus nullified.

[econ21]

Going off on a slight tangent, I don't know if anyone here caught the UK news report a month or two back saying that the size of the English force at Agincourt had been significantly underestimated? Apparently, a historian has gone through the records - expenditure on payment to soldiers etc - and inferred that the English must have brought quite a lot more men to the battle than is commonly thought. Hence the victory was a bit less outstanding than has been believed.

[Marcellus]

Going off on a slight tangent, I don't know if anyone here caught the UK news report a month or two back saying that the size of the English force at Agincourt had been significantly underestimated? Apparently, a historian has gone through the records - expenditure on payment to soldiers etc - and inferred that the English must have brought quite a lot more men to the battle than is commonly thought. Hence the victory was a bit less outstanding than has been believed.

I seem to remember hearing something about this too, but I can't find anything on the BBC website about it.

[Beirut]

Agincourt. One of my favorites.

I've read quite a bit about the battle. I never get bored with it. Love to replay it (as well as can be done) with Medieval: Total War. It's probably the biggest reason I bought the game.

One thing that always come to mind was the... intestinal disposition, of the English soldiers. They had what they called the "bloody stool". While the English stood waiting for the French to attack, the British soldiers were forced to relieve themselves on the spot, as they could not break formation.

Thousands of men standing in their own filth waiting for a numerically superior enemy to attack. War, as General Sherman said, is all Hell.

Indeed.

*Also, I saw a drawing of a different English formation. It had the archers in phalanx shaped formation between the foot soldiers. Something like this:

--^--^--^--

I hope I didn't traumatize anyone with my devastating and mind blowing graphical representation of true war. ~:eek:

[Brutus]

Damn that battle! The last independant duke of Brabant who was worth that name died along with the commoners because that blasted Henry wouldn't take prisoners!

All hail Anthony of Burgundy, duke of Brabant, Limbourg and Luxembourg!

[Watchman]

There's a bit of a debate about the English formation at Agincourt, but a rather convincing argument against that "archers between the heavies" theory I've read is the simple truth that as the main English battle line would be meeting its French opposite number head one whatever the heck the English tried to do about it, there'd be extremely little sense in introducing several patently weak points in the formation by leaving blocks of missile troops between the well-equipped, properly trained shock troops. The longbowmen may have been quite formidable missile troops, but between the fact that their equipement was ultimately rather light (at least compared to the men-at-arms), and their close-combat training secondary at best (particularly compared to the MAAs), it is mildly doubtful if they'd been able to put up much of a real fight against the French infantry heavies in a straight fight.

All the more so as flanking fire from the wings would give pretty much equal firepower effect (and probably even better, as they would't be shooting directly at the shields all the time...) and not weaken the main close-combat line. One also gets the impression that once the French heavies got stuck in with their English colleagues the longbowmen up and attacked their flanks - certainly a more plausible way from them to get something done in hand-to-hand than meeting heavily-armoured, well-trained melee troops head on.

[ShadesWolf]

I don't know if anyone here caught the UK news report a month or two back saying that the size of the English force at Agincourt had been significantly underestimated

The historian u are talking about is 'Anne Curry' who happens to have a new book about Agincourt. If you listen to the radio article above you can hear her taking about it.

[edyzmedieval]

It doesn't matter if King Henry had 1 million men or 10 men, it matters that he chose very well the terrain, and the "cut-stakes-to-stop-french-cavalry-not-to-trample-longbowmen" is a great idea.

[Incongruous]

Naw, unless they hit a visor or something the English longbowmen couldn't have done all that much archery-wise to the French men-at-arms

I'm sorry to say that plate armour can be pierced by Bodkin arrows (the latter ones, not the "anti-chainmail" ones), and alot of knights and men-at-arms would have been killed by them. Also, I beleiev that on that day, as the ground was so unstable, the heavily armoured men would have been out-played by the rachers, they would have been sitting ducks.

[caesar44]

Introduction

In August 1415, the 26-year-old English King, Henry V, took an army across the channel and invaded France.
War with England’s traditional enemy suited Henry down to the ground. Firstly and most importantly, he had a not inconsiderable claim to both the Duchy of Normandy and the French throne. Secondly, an overseas campaign would nicely divert the minds of his subjects from problems at home (no different from today then!). Thirdly, it was an opportunity to pay the dastardly French back for their own raids on the English coastline.
Henry’s plan was simple. Land at Harfleur (now just about a part of Le Havre on the Seine estuary) and take the town there as a base of operations. Next, march upstream to Paris, and then on to Bordeaux.
The crossing went smoothly, the taking of Harfleur did not. Rather than being a walkover, the town was heavily fortified and well defended.
Although the initial landing, some three miles to the west of the town, was unopposed, Harfleur’s strong walls, with their towers, barbicans and moat, together with several hundred men-at-arms, proved a tough nut to crack. French counter-mining meant that the English had to rely on their artillery to batter at the walls of the town, all the while suffering casualties themselves from the guns and crossbows of the defenders. This is the bit in Shakespeare’s play where Henry exhorts his men with the “Cry ‘God for Harry! England and Saint George!’” quote. It took the English a month to force a surrender, and cost Henry fully one third of his army: lost to both casualties and disease.
This left the English King with somewhat of a dilemma. His force was now not strong enough to carry out his original plan, or even perhaps to beat the large numbers of French troops gathering under the Constable d’Albret at nearby Rouen, but he could not afford to lose face by simply re-embarking his men and going home.
Henry decided to avoid the French but, against the advice of his nobles, to satisfy the demands of honour by proving that an English army could march through France “at will”.
His army would march north to the English enclave at Calais, some 120 miles away, and make their way home from there.

The March To Calais

Leaving the Earl of Dorset in charge at Harfleur with around 500 men-at-arms, 1000 archers, and the artillery and baggage trains, Henry set off for Calais on 8th October. His force now comprised around 900 men-at-arms and 5000 longbowmen, and carried provisions for only seven to ten days.
The march hit problems almost immediately. Not only had heavy rains turned all the roads to cloying mud, but the ford that they had expected to use to cross the Bethune river was flooded, forcing a diversion to find one further inland. By the time that they had crossed the next river, the Breste, the English had already marched some 80 miles in five days.
The next major obstacle was the Somme, but a captured prisoner warned of a substantial French force blocking the obvious crossing point. A further diversion led to another crossing being found, but this necessitated another five days of extra marching and the beating off of a French cavalry attack.
After crossing on the 19th, Henry declared the 20th October a rest day, but this gave the French heralds time to track the English army down and issue an official challenge to battle.
This Henry ignored, and the English marched on: covering another 70-odd miles in four days. They were now only two days march from the safety of Calais but, late on the 24th, scouts reported that a large French army had managed to get ahead of them and now blocked their route.
Realising that his army was exhausted (having marched over 200 miles in 16 days), hungry (the men had been living off nuts and raw vegetables for almost a week), and still suffered from the dysentery brought from Harfleur, Henry attempted to sue for peace.
As his terms really only offered basic reparations for damage caused during the campaign to date, they were rejected: with the French demanding that he permanently renounce almost all rights to French land. Negotiations broke down, and both sides prepared for battle.

The Night Before Battle

There could not have been a greater contrast between the two camps.
Shakespeare aside, Henry ordered that total silence be maintained in the English lines., so that all could rest as much as possible.
The French, however, confident of victory over the rag-tag invaders, partied the night away: boasting of the great deeds that they would perform on the morrow.

The Battlefield

From above, the Agincourt battlefield resembles nothing more than a modern-day, churned-up rugby pitch!
Thick woods bordered a flattish area of newly-ploughed fields that was largely blocked at one end by the sizeable French camp and at the other by the village of Maisoncelles with the English bivouacked in front of it.
The open area was about 1200 yards wide at the French end, but narrowed to about 800 yards where the English were. The initial deployment of the two armies put them about 1000 yards apart, with the front of the French line resting on a track that led from the village of Agincourt to the village of Tramecourt.
Heavy rain had turned the newly-ploughed fields into a quagmire: a fact that would later have a terrible significance for the French men-at-arms.
The field obviously suited the smaller English army, as the French would not be able to bring their superior numbers to bear, but the latter were apparently so confident of victory that this didn’t bother them.

The Opposing Sides

Most historians seem to agree that the English army numbered about 5,000 archers armed with longbows, and around 900 men-at-arms.
The French, on the other hand, are variously quoted as having anywhere between 20-50,000 men present, although one contemporary Alastair Campbell wannabe suggests a figure as high as 150,000. A fair assessment is that they mustered around 25,000 men-at-arms and cavalry, supported by around 4,000 archers/crossbowmen and a few bombards.
As Murray Walker might have said: “Surely nothing can stop the French now”!

Initial Deployment – The English

There are two schools of thought as to the deployment of the English.
Although both agree that Henry deployed his men in one line, with no reserves, the traditional view is that Henry positioned archers on each of his flanks, with the centre of the line composed of three equal-sized bodies of dismounted men-at-arms separated from each other by more archers.
The latest thinking suggests, however, that although this set up would allow the English to fire straight at an advancing enemy, it would also weaken the centre of the English line for the (usually critical) moment of impact. It would also go against standard English practice. I agree with this more modern view, and would suggest that Henry put all his archers on the flanks, concentrating only the three bodies of men-at-arms in the centre.

Initial Deployment – The French

In total contrast to the tight discipline of the English lines, the French deployment was utter chaos!
D’Albret’s plan called for his army to be deployed in three lines. The first would comprise some 8,000 dismounted men-at-arms; the second another 6,000 dismounted men-at-arms supported by the archers and crossbowmen; and the third around 10,000 mounted knights. On the flanks would be two further groups of mounted men-at-arms: 1,600 on the left under the Compte de Vendome, and 800 on the right under de Brebant. Bombards, positioned in the second line, would cut the English line into small groups: the French would then move forward and wipe them out a bit at a time.
Unfortunately every French noble wanted to be in at the kill: pushing themselves and their retinues forward into the front line until the French centre was one anarchic mass. The archers and crossbowmen were elbowed out to the flanks, and the field of fire of the bombards blocked by the eager knights.

Opening Stages

Battle lines drawn up, both sides sat and stared at each other.
Henry’s formation was defensive, and the French were happy to let the English attack their superior numbers or even to let the ruffians starve to death where they were.
After about four hours, at around 11am, Henry realised that he was going to have to provoke the French to attack. His army would only get weaker as time went on, and he didn’t have the numbers for a frontal assault of his own.
Quickly and quietly his army advanced to just within maximum longbow range of the French line. This would be a distance of approximately 250-280 yards.
The French did not react: the party atmosphere in their lines had continued to the extent that some knights were now having their lunch!
The English deployed in their new position as before, but supplemented their defences with a line of sharpened stakes cut from the nearby woods.
Once everything was in place, Henry ordered the archers to open fire.

“Like a Cloud Laden with Rain”

The first volley of arrows slammed into the French lines within seconds…and did almost no damage at all to the heavily armoured French knights.
What is did do, however, was outrage the French army to such an extent that its commanders completely lost control. Led by the cavalry from the wings, the men-at-arms of the first two French lines lumbered forward into the muddy fields.
The French horsemen were committed piecemeal, as some of the knights were caught dismounted, lunching or gossiping rather than ready for action. Tasked with taking out the English longbowmen, they would have taken about 40 seconds to reach the enemy line: enough time to be hit by another 3-4 volleys of arrows, with the final two going in at short range. Those knights who did reach the archers crashed straight into the defensive stakes: unable to outflank the line of longbowmen because of the heavy woods to either side.
It was a disaster: the charge stopped dead, and those not shot down at point blank range were pulled to the ground by the nimble archers and dispatched with sharp, pointy things or just drowned in the lethal ooze. Soon a mass of routing horse was heading back towards the French lines.

Crash, Bang, Wallop!

Coming the other way were, of course, the French dismounted men-at-arms: still slowly churning their way forward through the mud. More chaos ensued as half-crazed horses slammed through the advancing columns, increased by the fact that the dismounted foot were trying to charge only the English men-at-arms, archers being too scummy and peasant-like to fight head on, and thus squeeze themselves into an even smaller gap.
The disorder was further increased by the fact that the English archers had now disposed of the French knights and were free to fire into the flanks of the advancing foot. It would have taken 3-4 minutes for the French to reach the English line, not including any delays occasioned by the need to avoid retreating horsemen. By the time they got there, they were unsupported, pin-cushioned, disordered, and exhausted: really no more than a heavily armoured mob.
Despite this, numbers and the sheer quality of the men and their equipment meant that they were still a formidable fighting force. The English line buckled at impact but, crucially, held: and a giant pushing match ensued. The French immediately facing the English were being shoved by both the enemy men-at-arms from the front and their comrades coming up from behind: not very conducive to combat effectiveness.
At this point the English archers intervened again. Downing their longbows, they attacked the flanks of the committed French columns. Individual knights, unbeatable one-on-one, were surrounded and dispatched as their mounted colleagues had been before. The first French line was almost totally destroyed.
The men-at-arms of the second French line arrived a few minutes later. Those not abandoning the fight immediately at the sight of their fallen comrades suffered entirely the same fate.

War Crimes Controversy

Both sides then paused for breath.
Despite their success so far, the English were still heavily outnumbered by the remaining French third line, so when news reached Henry of a successful French attack on the English baggage train (including the fact that one of his crowns had been stolen), he appears to have assumed that the French were on the verge of outflanking him. In fact, it appears that this “attack” was more of a looting party organised by the local squire and associated peasants.
The English had captured more prisoners than they could safely contain: around 4,000 according to some commentators. Henry ordered their execution: presumably to avoid them attempting to join in any further attacks on the English flank, overwhelming their captors and piling into the recovering English line from the inside.
The men-at-arms asked to carry out the executions refused: nobly concerned about how dishonourable it would be to slaughter a highborn enemy who had surrendered to them, and somewhat less nobly concerned about what the deaths would mean in terms of the ransom money they would receive by returning the captives alive. Henry had no problems, however, finding some archers to do the job. The slaughter began, only stopping once it was clear that the English had won.
A third French attack led by the Compte’s de Marle and de Fauquembergues was beaten off without any real difficulty, and the third French line began to slink away from the battlefield.
The English were triumphant!

Casualties & Aftermath

Almost half the existing French nobility had died or been taken prisoner.
Today, it’s hard to come to terms with how significant this was for France and the French throne. Perhaps the equivalent of half of all British MP’s being wiped out, or half the cast of Eastenders and Coronation Street combined.
The English had lost around 250 killed, but were so drained by the battle and circumstance that they could not take any real advantage of the situation. Henry ordered most of the loot to be burned, and continued his march to Calais.
Although in the next few years the English continued to win battles against the weakened French, and Henry was eventually made effective heir to the French throne, his death, in 1422, and the rise of Joan of Arc meant that within a couple of decades the only territory remaining to the English in France was the Guyenne region (Calais).

Conclusion

Agincourt is a great battle to re-fight. Although the sides seem incredibly disproportionate, handicapping the superior numbers of French with the second option, above, evens things out to the extent that my money would probably be on the English.

As Henry says:

For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition, and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves acursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin's day!

[Jediknight73]

WoW.Good read almost could picture the battle.Archers>>>>Rule

[caesar44]

~:cheers:

[ShadesWolf]

Agincourt. One of my favorites.

I've read quite a bit about the battle. I never get bored with it. Love to replay it (as well as can be done) with Medieval: Total War. It's probably the biggest reason I bought the game.



Have you tried my mod of the battle ?

[Meneldil]

Although in the next few years the English continued to win battles against the weakened French, and Henry was eventually made effective heir to the French throne, his death, in 1422, and the rise of Joan of Arc meant that within a couple of decades the only territory remaining to the English in France was the Guyenne region (Calais).

Calais is not in Guyenne

[ShadesWolf]

Calais is not in Guyenne

Agreed Calais is in Artois (NE France) and Guyenne is south West France (Bordeaux to Spanish or should I say Navarre border)

[Brenus]

As Henry says:

For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition, and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves acursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin's day!

Was it Henry or Shakespeare? ~:)
I like your summary. Ignoring the British defeats and the casualties (Battle of Orleans, Formigny, Castellion etc), where the proportions were in favour of the French (Battle of Patay: 18 June 1429, 14 years after Agincourt: 5 French killed, more than 2000 English, for example, and I gave figures for the others battles in another post)…
But you can still ignore the reality. The English were defeated in battle. ~:cheers:

[caesar44]

As Henry says:

For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition, and gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves acursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin's day!

Was it Henry or Shakespeare? ~:)
I like your summary. Ignoring the British defeats and the casualties (Battle of Orleans, Formigny, Castellion etc), where the proportions were in favour of the French (Battle of Patay: 18 June 1429, 14 years after Agincourt: 5 French killed, more than 2000 English, for example, and I gave figures for the others battles in another post)…
But you can still ignore the reality. The English were defeated in battle. ~:cheers:


Huh??????????????????????????????????????????????????
The English lost the war , not the battle of Agincourt....

[Brenus]

within a couple of decades the only territory remaining to the English in France was the Guyenne region (Calais).” It was a little bit short, that is what I wanted to say. Agincourt was won by the English and was a great victory. However, the English defeats like Patey, Formigny and Castellion were as much disastrous for the English, and you decided not to mention them. The English lost the war because they lost battles, even if they won battles. Not for unknown reasons lost in the mist of History. ~D

“Was it Henry or Shakespeare”: Do we know if Henry actually said that or it was written by Shakespeare, the best propagandist of the Tudor (I am sure of the dynasty, actually)? It is a real question. ~:confused:

[Marcellus]

“[B]Was it Henry or Shakespeare”: Do we know if Henry actually said that or it was written by Shakespeare, the best propagandist of the Tudor (I am sure of the dynasty, actually)? It is a real question. ~:confused:

Henry V wasn't a Tudor. The Tudors did descend from the house of Lancaster (Henry V's house) however, via Margaret Beaufort.

[ShadesWolf]

OK so back to the subject of Agincourt !!

This battle brings up a number of interesting points/ questions ?

1/ Why did Henry give the order the kill the prisoners ?


2/ How many men were on both sides, Anne Currys new book examines these numbers in detail and trys to persuade that it was an even battle on numbers

Did the outcome of this battle allow Burgundian expansion, as the cream of France lay dead and the Duchy of Burgundy was intact.
( Burgundy was equivocal about whether to oppose the English or to ally themselves with them. John did allow his subjects to serve in the French army, but declined himself and forbade his sons presence.)

[caesar44]

Henry ordered to kill the prisoners because he had more prisoners than fighting men , you see , he could not managed them .

[Watchman]

Doesn't sound all *that* likely, not without some other reason to start considering the captives a serious risk. Regardless of the changes that were developing at the time, medieval European warfare tended to follow its own kind of etiquettes and rules - and given their rather fatigued state the French ranking troops propably weren't overly keen on messing around with the ones regarding prisoners and surrender without a good reason.

One theory I've read is that either the French had managed to rally enough men to try a second semi-cohesive attack and that made the English position precarious enough that Henry had the (after all still fully armoured and to a large degree armed) POWs killed rather than risk them getting encouraged enough to start causing trouble in his rear, and/or a separate French flanking detachement attacking the English baggage train (as had apparently been envisaged in the original plan the generals had drafted) and threatening their rear, again putting the English in a worrisome position and prompting drastic responses.


I'm sorry to say that plate armour can be pierced by Bodkin arrows (the latter ones, not the "anti-chainmail" ones), and alot of knights and men-at-arms would have been killed by them.Only from fairly close ranges, and that's only if they don't have to go through a shield first. And it's not like armour was meant to nullify casualties, it was there to limit them. Anyway, dropping "many" MAAs is hardly sufficient if there's "enough" left to kibble the archers. Not too many years before Agincourt in Nicopolis, 1396, Turkish infantry archers, including Janissaries, wielding the rather more powerful recurve composite bow and nigh certainly generally better archers than the English, and defended by a deep field of stakes, were attacked by the main force of Crusader cavalry (which dismounted once it hit the stakes) and eventually routed after hand-to-hand combat. Had the French cavalry wings at Agincourt had enough men, instead of many of the warriors detailed to the task having wandered off or never having turned up there to begin with (lack of discippline and professionalism was a recurring issue for the French), they'd have at the very least entirely occupied and quite likely routed the English archer wings.
Also, I beleiev that on that day, as the ground was so unstable, the heavily armoured men would have been out-played by the rachers, they would have been sitting ducks.Not in a head-on melee clash. They did give their well-rested and equally armed and trained English colleagues a bit of trouble, after all. Heavy infantry by definition fights in a fairly close order and in a relatively solid, straight line. Had they had to meet such a solid wall of weapons, armour and shields, in the hands of far better trained combatants, in a straight hand-to-hand fight, the lightly equipped English archers would have been badly off indeed. And not in the least as the crush of the melee would have made it very difficult indeed for them to get any real advantage out of their greater agility, the way they could when attacking the MAAs at the flanks.

[Orda Khan]

There seems to be question as to the ability of bodkin arrows. The short bodkin was produced specifically for use against plate. Needle bodkins as used against mail were of no use. Plate armour became better quality yet we still see bodkins being used much later than this battle. Who really cares if they could pierce plate or not? These heads were attached to arrows that were up to 5/8 of an inch in diameter, if one of these hit you it would probably knock you from your mount. Have a chat with someone who takes part in reinactments, I know for a fact that if you are struck by one of the 'blunts' that their archers use, you will be very sorry and very sore. One guy I know was hit on the leg and was almost unable to walk the next day

......Orda

[Watchman]

*shrug* What I know is that there are recorded accounts from contemporaries about even the anti-plate kind fired from steel-stave crossbows causing nasty and painful bruising at longer ranges when they hit armour. And there's not much of a contest in the field of sheer power between an arbalest and a longbow, that's for sure. For their part, although such bruising is certainly uncomfortable enough its ability to make someone hors de combat is considerably less than that of hits that actually penetrate into the body. Bruises are ultimately just superficial internal bleeding, and aside from being painful and inconvenient don't normally compromise the overall workings of the human body too much. Deep penetrating wounds are a whole another thing; a single one in the torso may well send the whole system into a general shock and/or kill over time through severe internal bleeding, or hit something vital and kill outright.

And knocking someone out of the saddle with the impact of a flimsy little arrow is a little far-fetched when full-tilt lance impacts and poleaxe hits commonly failed to manage it...

It's not like plate armour couldn't be shot through, the issue is the better kinds could only really be shot through at (for the archer or crossbowman) uncomfortably short ranges, and even there shields could be a major issue. It should be remembered that the longbow and the increasingly common and more powerful crossbows were among the things late-medieval armour evolved against, and which it outlived...

[CBR]

I have no doubt that a blunt arrrow can produce some nasty bruises but that would be if it hit a spot with no armour. Arrows dont have enough momentum to knock a guy off his feet by the sheer force itself, but if the kinetic energy is not dissipated over a large area it would give a bruise, as in the case of a blunt tip.

French armouries were making brigandine armour in a light (20 pound) and heavy version (27+ pounds weight) The light version was supposed to deal with light crossbows and longbows and the heavy brigandine was for protection against the heavy crossbow. Thats first half of the 15th century IIRC.

AFAIK the shield more or less disappeared in the 15th century. So that could be an indication that soldiers didnt feel a need for it as they got adaquate protection from their armour. It of course depends on the quality and thickness of the armour but in general it took short range shots within perhaps 50 yards or less to be able to penetrate the heavy plate armour.

At Agincourt the archers could have shot something like 100,000 to 200,000 arrows at the first French line and it doesnt seem to have cut down the numbers much. But it would have had some disordering effect as Men-at-Arms had to have their visors down as well as did produce some casualties.


CBR

[Orda Khan]

I for one would not like to don a suit of armour in order to test this theory. As for those longbow arrows being flimsy.......

.....Orda

[ShadesWolf]

So has anybody visited the battlefield ?