Henry V

[Csargo]

If someone could give me some information on him it would greatly appreciated. I'm doing a project on him and I need information.

:help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help:

[ShadesPanther]

http://www.bartleby.com/65/he/Henry5Eng.html

IIRC the French king, Charles VI, died a year after Henry.

[Atilius]

To put some flesh on the bones offered by the link above:

Desmond Seward, in his book on the Hundred Years War, writes "He had no mistresses, at least not while he was King. Indeed a Frenchman who saw Henry at Winchester in the spring of 1415 thought he looked more like a churchman than a soldier, and undoubtably he had a churchman's tastes: he liked books and often wrote his own letters, he was a patron of sacred music, and he took a keen interest in theology and ecclesiastical affairs. Furthermore before his accession he played an active role in suppressing heresy; on one occasion he personally superintended the burning of a Lollard blacksmith in a barrel. When the man began to scream Henry had him pulled out and offered him a pension if he would recant - the man (who had denied transubstantiation) refused and was promptly put back into the flaming barrel."

[Beirut]

Desmond Seward also wrote a biography of Henry V (which I just finished reading for the third time), and good King Henry was a nasty *******, that's for sure. He could be the greatest friend and the greatest foe. Fair minded and just one moment, cruel beyond contemplation the next. One thing for sure, he truly thought he was in the eye of God.

Seward made an interesting comparison between the King Henry and the Nazis, saying that the French population were in far greater danger from the English under Henry V than from the German's under Hitler's rule. King Henry was responsible for, as far as I know, the most brutal acts ever committed against the French. There is no doubt that the French view Henry V with the same admiration as the Russians view Hitler.

Militarily speaking, Henry was grand indeed. Audacious, calculating, and an expert in siegecraft. He was a grand strategist in every sense of the word. He played politics and war together like a master. Mind you, some of his actions were hasty in nature, his thinking was that he could not lose since God was on his side. But then again, he won, so who is to say?

[Mount Suribachi]

King Henry was responsible for, as far as I know, the most brutal acts ever committed against the French.

I dunno about that. I think Julius Caesers conquest of Gaul would have that honour - genocidal is a word used more and more to describe it.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Seward made an interesting comparison between the King Henry and the Nazis, saying that the French population were in far greater danger from the English under Henry V than from the German's under Hitler's rule. King Henry was responsible for, as far as I know, the most brutal acts ever committed against the French. There is no doubt that the French view Henry V with the same admiration as the Russians view Hitler.


I'm sure Henrys acts were not as bad as some of the monarchs before him. His sieges did end in some bloodshed but the sacking of Caen in 1346 under Edward III or the sacking of Limoges under the Black Prince when the English troops went wild with bloodlust was much worse than some of Henry's atrocities.

Henry V was on the same level of most monarchs of the period with many being labelled with massacres or atrocities at some point in their reign.

[Red Peasant]

Desmond Seward also wrote a biography of Henry V (which I just finished reading for the third time)

Three times! Sounds like you admire Henry despite his 'atrocities'. I've never heard even a whisper of this comparison with Hitler by the French. I think William the Bastard was far worse to the English.

IIRC, the numbers for Julius Caesar (by his own account, so maybe just boasting) was one million dead Gauls, and over one million sold into slavery. Quite a feat! Gaul must have been very heavily populated for the time, hence very productive and quite socially advanced, which gives the lie to JC's slyly disparaging comments.

[Brutus]

IIRC the French king, Charles VI, died a year after Henry.
Both died in 1422 (Charles a few months later, I believe), so the infant Henry VI became both king of England and king of France (the only English king to have been effectively king in both countries).

[Beirut]

Three times! Sounds like you admire Henry despite his 'atrocities'.


I do. I admit to being caught up in the Shakesperean "myth" of King Henry before I knew all the facts of him. He was, regardless of his horrid behaviour, a magnificient example of determination in a man, and is worthy of study. Also, Agincourt is too magnificient a battle to overlook.


I'm sure Henrys acts were not as bad as some of the monarchs before him. His sieges did end in some bloodshed but the sacking of Caen in 1346 under Edward III or the sacking of Limoges under the Black Prince when the English troops went wild with bloodlust was much worse than some of Henry's atrocities.

The list of his atrocities is long indeed. During Henry's siege of Rouen, when the city released thousands of civilians they could no longer feed, King Henry did not let them go but had them herded into the ditches surrounding the city and watched them starve to death day after day. If a child was born in the ditch, it was brought up in a basket, christened, and sent back down to starve to death with its mother. This is just one example of his behaviour.

[Don Corleone]

Isn't there a movie starring Kenneth Brannagh about Henry V? I think it's Shakespeare, not historically based, so be careful about quoting any facts from it. But if you're looking for a little life behind the textbooks, I imagine it'd be quite entertaining.

From what I know of him, which granted is limited to his abilities as a field commander, not as a regent or evil warlord bent on siege, was that he was a brilliant tactician but rather poor strategist. His strengths lay in getting the most out of what he had on the field, not on taking care of said army between battles or getting them to the battle in the first place, for that matter.

Makes sense in light of Beirut's comments: God will provide for their needs long term, I just need them for the afternoon.

[Red Peasant]

Jeezus H man, Shakespeare ripped-off a Kenneth Brannagh movie. That sucks dude! Cry Havoc! :laugh4:
His grand strategy was almost flawless as he completely out-manoeuvred the French king and the dauphin, both militarily and diplomatically.


Beirut
Yeah, the myth is nearly always preferable.

[Brutus]

The list of his atrocities is long indeed. During Henry's siege of Rouen, when the city released thousands of civilians they could no longer feed, King Henry did not let them go but had them herded into the ditches surrounding the city and watched them starve to death day after day. If a child was born in the ditch, it was brought up in a basket, christened, and sent back down to starve to death with its mother. This is just one example of his behaviour.
Yipes. Sounds exactly like what Caesar did at Alesia though.

[Don Corleone]

Outmaneuvering Charles VI would not exactly require a braintrust. Wasn't the guy mad as a hatter?

I said my knowledge of Henry V was rather limited, but I thought he wasn't great at supplying his troops and coordinating extended movements. I've read several accounts by modern historians that assign blame for the 'plague' his troops were suffering immediately prior to Agincourt was food poisoning, due to poor rations.

[Csargo]

Isn't there a movie starring Kenneth Brannagh about Henry V? I think it's Shakespeare, not historically based, so be careful about quoting any facts from it. But if you're looking for a little life behind the textbooks, I imagine it'd be quite entertaining.

Yeah I have to watch that movie and read the play and then we have to do a project over it so I just wanted to get some more information on him.

Thanks alot:2thumbsup:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The list of his atrocities is long indeed. During Henry's siege of Rouen, when the city released thousands of civilians they could no longer feed, King Henry did not let them go but had them herded into the ditches surrounding the city and watched them starve to death day after day. If a child was born in the ditch, it was brought up in a basket, christened, and sent back down to starve to death with its mother. This is just one example of his behaviour.


Edward the third did something very similar at the siege of Calais in 1347

[Beirut]

Outmaneuvering Charles VI would not exactly require a braintrust. Wasn't the guy mad as a hatter?

I said my knowledge of Henry V was rather limited, but I thought he wasn't great at supplying his troops and coordinating extended movements. I've read several accounts by modern historians that assign blame for the 'plague' his troops were suffering immediately prior to Agincourt was food poisoning, due to poor rations.

Charles was mad now and then. He was lucid now and then as well.

The food poisoning you speak of was what they called "the bloody flux". It came from eating unripe fruit. Indeed, they had very poor rations.

[ajaxfetish]

The list of his atrocities is long indeed. During Henry's siege of Rouen, when the city released thousands of civilians they could no longer feed, King Henry did not let them go but had them herded into the ditches surrounding the city and watched them starve to death day after day. If a child was born in the ditch, it was brought up in a basket, christened, and sent back down to starve to death with its mother. This is just one example of his behaviour.
And I believe the same thing happened to several hundred civilians during Philip II's siege of Chateau Gaillard in 1203-04. It's a terrible thing, but it doesn't seem particularly uncharacteristic for the time. I don't think it sets Henry very far from his contemporaries in villainy.

Ajax

[Beirut]

And I believe the same thing happened to several hundred civilians during Philip II's siege of Chateau Gaillard in 1203-04. It's a terrible thing, but it doesn't seem particularly uncharacteristic for the time. I don't think it sets Henry very far from his contemporaries in villainy.

Ajax

Perhaps not, but the reality seems far removed from Shakespeare's portrait of him.

He might not have been that much worse, but I can't imagine he was any better.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I wouldn't take Shakers word on much especially anything historical. The way he destroyed the reputation of Macbeth, a king who was by no means as bad as the way the playwright potrayed him to be, was just ridiculous

[ajaxfetish]

I wouldn't take Shakers word on much especially anything historical. The way he destroyed the reputation of Macbeth, a king who was by no means as bad as the way the playwright potrayed him to be, was just ridiculous
Completely agreed. Richard III is also badly misrepresented thanks to the propaganda aspect of Shakespeare's plays. They're damned good fiction, and with a historical basis for the histories at least and some of the others, but they aren't history. On a sidenote, I think Shakespeare's Henry makes an interesting contrast to his Richard as a heroic and praiseworthy Machiavellian character compared to the traditional villified version.

Ajax

[ShadesWolf]

Are you still doing the project, or have you finished it yet.

If you need some more info what type of data do you need.

[Pontifex Rex]

I dunno about that. I think Julius Caesers conquest of Gaul would have that honour - genocidal is a word used more and more to describe it.

Yes but that was against the Gauls in 50ish BC. By Henry Vs day the Gauls are all gone, replaced by Burgundians, Franks, various Visigothic elements and other Germanic tribes all which evolved into what would become the *French*.

Like most European nations they are mix of whatever conquoring group happened to roll through the area after the collapse of the western Roman Empire.

Cheers.

[ShadesWolf]

I do. I admit to being caught up in the Shakesperean "myth" of King Henry before I knew all the facts of him. He was, regardless of his horrid behaviour, a magnificient example of determination in a man, and is worthy of study. Also, Agincourt is too magnificient a battle to overlook.



There are two excellent films out about Shakespears Henry V. The Branagh one is my favourite as its more fast passed and action packed. But the original Olivier one from 1945 is a very patrionic film and really makes you feel proud to be English. Both Films are easily availalbe and quite cheap.

[ajaxfetish]

I love the delivery of the speech before Agincourt in the Branagh film. It makes me want to throw on some armor and go fight thousands of Frenchman singlehandedly till death or glory. (sorry Meneldil, Louis, etc. :sweatdrop: )

Ajax

[ShadesWolf]

Tonight on UKTV History - 'Kings in waiting' has an episode on Henry V at 7.00pm (March 04)

If anybody is interested.