# Agincourt on tv.



## Seymour (Aug 25, 2003)

While I haven't seen this program, I am familiar with the historical documentation and interpretations of the event. The interpretations tend to favor the English side of course because, for whatever reason, British historians seem to have more prestige than others as a rule.

That said, it's pretty clear the archers didn't play as great a role in the outcome as they had in previous engagements probably because they ran out of ammunition, an oversight scholars are still trying to explain.

Regarding the decision to liquidate the prisoners, this was viewed at the time, in an era of atrocities, to be an atrocity of note. It violated the rules of war of the era much as some powers have done in our own time. 

The issue of weapons lying around was essentially a canard. Once a knight surrendered, he would have lost face by picking up his weapons again. The French were strict interpreters of that particular code of chivalry. Henry might have been too, but chose to ignore it in his decision.

To be fair, the outcome was so one sided that the situation was somewhat unprecedented. This probably motivated Henry to decide as he did, but it's still a blackmark on his reputation for which there can be no adequate apology.

Significantly, by deciding as he did, he insured that the English would never gain the support of the French nobility in pressing Henry's claims to the French throne. In a very real sense then, at Agincourt, Henry won the battle but lost the war.


----------



## DMP (Dec 22, 2003)

*Agincourt*

To continue the discussion I think I have seen the documentary in question, and also another called "Descisive Weapons- The Longbow" aired by the BBC.

I would beg the question British Forces estimated at 5000/6000- French Forces estimated at 60,000/70,000 - What Would You Have Done?


----------



## Seymour (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: Agincourt*



DMP said:


> *To continue the discussion I think I have seen the documentary in question, and also another called "Descisive Weapons- The Longbow" aired by the BBC.
> 
> I would beg the question British Forces estimated at 5000/6000- French Forces estimated at 60,000/70,000 - What Would You Have Done? *


I would have relied on inflated propaganda figures to justify or excuse my nefarious actions as well.

In 1415 there was hardly a power in Western Europe that could field a 16,000 man army let alone 60,000 plus. The Plague had taken it's toll as had the War.

We shouldn't need to review the versimultude of British historians or lack thereof. Let's just say they're inclined to represent things in the best light of the Empire and leave it at that. Otherwise, it's difficult to account for their inclination to lionize the Earl of Warwick, let alone Henry V.

Desmond Seward was even so bold as to assert, with a straight face and stiff upper lip mind you, that the Maid of Orleans aka Jehanne d'Arc had absolutely NO INFLUENCE on the fortunes of the English in France. Does that perhaps tell you something about where these dolts are coming from?


----------



## DMP (Dec 22, 2003)

*Agincourt*

Seymour

With all due respect this particular event in history seems to hit a raw nerve.

I would ask that you examine an account of events at this link:
http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgMain.html which is a common recount of the events of the day. We all agree that details are lost in the mists of time and twisted by the whims of the reporter.

There may be obvious reason to doubt the estimates as to the size of the armies, but even French historians agree that the English Army was vastly outnumbered, as they were starving and suffering with dysentery and other unpleasant illnesses.

The undisputable fact, however, is that the English Army routed the French. The Archers played a decisive part in fistly crippling so many French Men at Arms & Knights. The Archers were lightly armoured and mobile and did not rely on bows and arrows alone, but steel tipped spikes and mattocks, axes and other vicious weapons of their own device. Remember that the Archers were not of the nobility, chivalry (Ha! Ha!) stood for nothing in their eyes. Trained from the age of 7 or younger to shoot and kill, murdering a few Frenchmen held no qualms for them.

The effect of archers at the battles of Crecy, Poitiers,Agincourt is only to well known.

I would also question your remark that no power in western europe could raise and army of more than 16,000!

Instance - there existed in Europe the Feudal System which you are no doubt aware. Now, given that Henry started his exploits in France with and army overseas of some 10,000. England as far as I'm aware is some 3 times smaller than France. The French were on home territory and had been pursuing the english for several weeks massing its army during this time, is this figure of 16000 likely? and is it ducumented ?.

What seems to bother you is the fact that the English did not play by "The Rules" - smacks somewhat of the Amnerican War of Independence.

By the way, my only interest in the Battle of Agincourt , as a Welshman, is that the Archery Club in belonged to in Wales, had as its club badge the colours of the Caernarfon Company of Archers who served in the battle.


----------



## Seymour (Aug 25, 2003)

Fairplay? I should think not. I'm much more concerned with fair reporting, for which we have a dearth in English histrography.

10,000 is an inflated figure for Henry forces. They likely numbered no more than 6000 and perhaps less by the time dissentary and the attrition of several months chevralchee were taken into account.

It should be clear that Henry appreciated his predicament was dire even facing a French force of 16,000 which is why he was retreating via force march to Calais at the time the French caught up with him at Agincourt. 

The weather fortunately favored his tactics. The French for their part were largely tactical idiots, having learned little from the previous phase of the war, probably because the Constable in that phase was not "noble" enough, and reportedly ugly to boot so no one wanted to emulate him or his strategies until another commoner, Jehanne, came on the scene nearly a decade after Agincourt.

There is still the matter of why the English archers ran out of ammunition. It didn't seem to matter in the end, but it seems rather strange given Henry's reputation for generalship. Perhaps an oversight that needed to be covered up by vastly inflating French casualties? That might explain how thousands of unaccounted arrows seemingly disappeared.

France at the time wasn't even united, so judging her logistical capabilities compared to England would be an exercise in speculative fiction. Certainly the Burgundians couldn't be included, so again I would assert that the French force probably numbered no more than 16,000 and was probably closer to 10,000 or 12,000. Even basing an estimate on your assertion that the French had three times the manpower would yield a figure of 18,000.

There is also the problem that the two realms did not raise levies in the same way. The English system was much closer to modern recruiting of professional armies than the French system. There were also suitable institutions in place by 1415 to address issues of AWOL and provisioning that the English used but the French did not. The French king might call up levies in the tens of thousands but whether or not such levies actually appeared would be problematic at best. Which is also why we have a better idea of how many English there were going into the battle.

The 60,000 estimate comes from Henry himself, hardly a reliably objective witness, which lends credance to the theory that much of the account is tainted with self-serving propaganda. This is much more credible than assuming the English estimates actually represent reality.

After all, Henry came to France to gain a throne not go down in history as a reputable primary source.

This does not in any way degrade the tactical significance of Agincourt. It merely suggests that the victory was not nearly as one sided as people have heretofore supposed.

Without delving to far into things that might cause considerable consternation among the Cymry, let me say that my major problem with English historians is that often they have been the winners so their accounts tend to predominate regardless of their merits and even when they aren't the winners their accounts reflect an often subtle attempt to snatch moral victory from the jaws of practical defeat.

And example would be Robert Falcon Scott's diaries, which were "edited" by his wife and colleagues to cover up his gross stupidity among other things. No one seems to have had any inkling of this until Rolland Huntford compared the actual diaries to the book.

Regrettably, we don't have Henry's diaries, probably because they never existed, but we do have a very long tradition of English obfuscation probably beginning with the Venerable Bede. It might be reasonable then to suspect his accounts or those based on it especially if the facts are not consistent with what we know of the venue from other sources.

The French, by the way, were guilty of a similar atrocity at the battle of Nicopolis when they cut the throats of 1000 prisoners for reasons similar to those given by Henry. These were infidals of course so the egregiousness was excused on that basis.

The major issue remains that of keeping a treaty, which is what a surrender under terms is. I'm especially sensitive to that for reasons best left unaddressed in this forum, but that should suffice to explain my apprehension of Henry's behavior.

The Welsh archers might continue to glorify him at their discretion, but for me he is no more or less of a thug than any other medieval ruler, one of the hallmarks of the Europeans' failure to live within their means that has had onerous ramifications for the rest of the world.


----------



## DMP (Dec 22, 2003)

Dispite all our pontification, neither of us were present at said event. You obviously have a problem with English Historians, and are of a nature that you would agrue the sky be pink. I, having been educated in Europe have to make my own mind up based on information provided to me.

I think we both agree that leaders of the day were mere tyrannical thugs, nothing changes really.

As far as to assume that Welsh Archers hold Henry in any esteem, nothing could be further from the truth, He was an Englishman (Although allegedly of Welsh descent) probably hated as much as the French.

Our pride in the event lies in the reputation of the skill of Welsh Archers with a Longbow

Thank you for the discussion which has certainly provided a different slant on things


----------

