Talk:Battle of Agincourt
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Agincourt article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on October 25, 2004, October 25, 2005, and October 25, 2006.|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
Primary sources section (original_research?)
See Archive 1: Primary sources section (original_research?) for previous discussion.
Agincourt in fiction
I removed this addition from the list of references
Lawrence-Young, D. "Arrows Over Agincourt." Fictionalised account of the Battles of Agincourt & Harfleur. 2012 ISBN: 9781849 631228
Obviously not appropriate there but the more recent versions of the article no longer contain anything on novels and other fictional material in the popular representation section. I believe we removed this section because it was filling up with obscure sci-fi novels but does it need reconsidering? Monstrelet (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really care that much, to be honest. In my experience with other articles it's quite hard to keep trivia lists to a manageable length, or distinguish particularly significant works from fluff. I therefore tend to favour leaving it all out, although other editors seem to think they're sections worth having. --Merlinme (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The key is having suitable reliable sources. If we can find reliable secondary sources that discuss or analyse the fictionalised accounts of the battle, then I'm in favour of inclusion, using the secondary works as sources - but I'm not aware of many secondary works on the historical fiction (let alone the science fiction writing) surrounding Agincourt. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've found one independent review of Lawrence-Young's book. It is in the Children/Young Adult category. Not great literature then but apparently a good book to introduce younger readers to the HYW. I don't think it therefore fits with the current scheme of the article, as we don't have a Agincourt in Fiction or a Further Reading section. The most reviewed fiction I think is Bernard Cornwell's Azincourt, which was a best seller. This is probably the most notable of the fiction offerings, if we were to add something about books.Monstrelet (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the following from the article to here for further discussion of whether there should be an "in historical fiction" section.
In popular historical-fiction, the battle is featured in the books,Harry of Monmouth, by A.M. Maughan,(1965), in Good King Harry, by Denise Giardina (1984) and in Fortune Made His Sword by Martha Rofheart, (1972).
I've not read the Maughan or Giardina books but Rofheart's was previously in the article under its UK title "Cry God for Harry". As we have discussed above, there are issues with lack of critical sources on these books. That said, to talk about the battle in song, theatre and film but make no mention of it in literature seems unbalanced. We might list books without comment but otherwise I am unsure how this might be tackled.Monstrelet (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've had another skim through JSTOR and similar sites (NB: I won't claim that I've made a thorough job of this though); I'm not convinced that Agincourt is featured in the secondary literature as a particularly popular/noteworthy topic for historical literature. There are some reliable/quality sourced reviews of the Azincourt novel, but even then, not very many, and they're generally focused on the author rather than the links between the book and the actual battle, and I'm not coming across much else. In the absence of secondary sources/coverage, I'd be inclined to argue against having an "in historical fiction" section, and certainly against having a "list of books which mention Agincourt" kind of approach, although I'd probably feel neutrally towards a specific reference to Azincourt, since at least it was a best-seller. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems that it makes sense for this page to reference the popular fiction written that includes the subject of the article. A decision can be made that there needs to be some critical mention of the Battle in a citation for any novel and that the time frame of any novel should be set in the historical period. Also, some evidence that a novel had a large distribution, such as Cornwell's best seller ranking or being a Main Selection of the Book-of-the Month Club, such as Rofheart's. Being reprinted in many languages and Countries could also attest to a novel being actually popular and not just "published". There is a review of Rofheart's in the NYT's Book Review, by Granville Hicks where he compares Olivier's "Henry V" Agincourt scenes, "...the impression of Agincourt I retain from that movie is colorful and altogether grand. Mrs. Rofheart's battle is grimy as well as extremely bloody."  Here also is a review deleving into Rofheart's presentation of Henry's French Campaign/Agincourt section,  There should be some representation here of fiction, Cornwell and Rofheart could be a good start.Evananda (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Welsh at Agincourt
I have today removed a comment allegedly taken from Curry's 2005 Agincourt book that over half the archers in the English army were Welsh. Knowing this to be dubious, I double checked Curry and could not find this statement. In fact, recent research suggests that there were only a few hundred Welsh troops at Agincourt (the army had never contained many and they had suffered badly at Harfleur) - see Andy Chapman's PhD thesis here http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/169897/ .
While the article fairly remarks that there were both English and Welsh archers present, the article should present a balanced view based on scholarship not historic myth. I will attempt, if I have time, to incorporate Charman's research into the article. Monstrelet (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
AustralianRupert has done a sterling job working through the article to point out where he thinks citations are needed to achieve B class status - the least we should aim for before next year's anniversay IMO. AR is a very experienced editor who knows the assessment rules but he is no medievalist. So it is down to those who know the topic to fill the gaps. A quick read through today enabled me to pick off a few citations. Most, if not all, others should be accessible from major sources already used in the article (Curry and Barker primarily, I think. If anyone has the time to put in just a few from either source, it will help push the task along. Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Jeannet de Poix ou de Tyrel
The above has been placed in the Notable Casualties section and removed. It is alleged he was Admiral of France and killed at Agincourt. In fact he was not Admiral of France until 1418, so didn't die at the battle. His brother (?) Jean V Tyrel de Poix did die at the battle but, although apparently a royal councellor, doesn't seem worth adding to the list. The admiral of France killed at Agincourt would seem to be Clignet de Brabant, though Curry opens the possibility it was the Sire de Dampierre (unnamed). Philippe d'Auxy, Sire de Dampierre was killed at Agincourt. French wikipedia lists the Amiral de France in 1415 as the Jaques de Chatillon, Sire de Dampierre, but with the wrong name wikilinked. Jaques de Chatillon was killed at Agincourt. Anyone able to resolve this? Monstrelet (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)