Talk:Battle of Agincourt/Archive 1

An event mentioned in this article is an October 25 selected anniversary.

---

I'm surprised to see this article printed in English. A Frenchman obviously wrote it.

• I agree. What is meant by battle in this sentence?: "It is probable that the usual three 'battles' were drawn up in line, each with its archers on the flanks and the dismounted men-at-arms in the centre;" ThePedanticPrick 23:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• In this context battle means a battalion or division, a major part of the army formed under a sub-commander. It is the correct medieval English term (in modern spelling). Note, however, that the diagrams of the battle are ludicrous: the English are supposed to have 1000 men-at-arms and 6000 archers... now compare the area of the oblong battles of men-at-arms to the triangles of archers. Those men-at-arms must be gigantically bloated fatties. dbrwr 23:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What gives you this impression? TeunSpaans 05:35 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Henry V was hardly a 'war criminal' - for a start there was nothing approaching any form of 'international law' at the time. I'm removing that phrase. If anyone has a problem then we can discuss it. Chrism 10:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Someone removeedHistory -- Military history -- List of battles -- History of France -- History of England and put it as "see also:". I am not saying it's bad idea, but since i was begging for a very long time that people will use it, and already few dozens of battles are having that format, i tend to think people should discuss this before changing!!! szopen

The sketch says "Crosbowmen" instead of "Crossbowmen". Lee J Haywood 20:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

A modified explanation of the battle

I am not happy with the section it expreses a POV from a TV programme. The tests that they did were made to make their point:

• The draw weight of the bows used may or may not have been correct.
• The bodkin arrow heads which they used were one of many designs.
• It assumed that the majority of armour was steel of consistent quality and that the arrow heads were iron.

It is not that I disagree with the argument put forward by the programme that many French men may have been killed in a crush on a muddy field, but I do not think that alleged ineffectiveness of the long bow should be emphasises without more tests unless the limits of the tests are mentioned in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very glad to see this changed. I'm fed up with wacky revisionist therories being given credence in wikipedia simply because somebody read something in the paper and then decided to stick it in the article. adamsan 13:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but almost everything in the wikipedia is the direct result of someone reading something somewhere, and then deciding to stick it in an article. If you want something changed, you better have a precise, objective definition of "wacky" prepared, along with reasons supported by facts. --24.118.77.253 05:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hate to have to tell you this but there's a difference between adding half-remembered details of a TV programme and synthesising the conclusions of authoritative books and articles on a subject. The editor who presents the refutation of the alternative view in the article gives reasons supported by facts whilst the originator of the wacky theory only relies on unattributed "recent experiments". If you want to back up the alternative theory I suggest you take your own advice and find some evidence. adamsan 08:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have some comments to make on the question of the efficacy of the longbow, and the tests carried out at the University of Reading.

In fact, the tests, like most such tests, used no bows at all. The use of mechanical apparatus is standard in these kinds of tests to ensure that every 'shot' is as much like the others as possible.

The bodkin head used was based upon one actually found at the battlesite by archaeologists, so we know that this design was one used on the day.

The point about the armour is valid. Older armours may well have been present on the field, and we know that iron mail and coats of plates would be vulnerable to the arrowheads of the day. Steel arrowheads could have been made, but since this would multiply the cost of an arrow sixfold, it wasn't often done. The arrowheads recovered at the battle site are certainly of iron.

There is another point which needs to be made ; the tests were all done at 90 degrees, instead of the standard 30 degrees usually used, so they overstate the actual penetrating power of the arrowheads considerably.

In fact, there is little doubt about the growing inability of the longbow to penetrate 15th century armour in either the sources or the experimental archaeological studies. By the time of Verneuil in 1424, the new armours were in such widespread use that the French knights seemed invulnerable to the English arrows. Archers could still kill men at arms with shots at their exposed faces - by one account, this is how James IV died at Flodden - but the glory days were over.

Along with the error in angle of the shot there was errors or factors ignored in regards to the armor. It was flat and did not appear to have been wrought, thus making it alot stronger; they assumed that all armor was 2mm thick all over, it was not; they assumed all French had access to the best armor, while the nobles did many of their entourage would not have; they assumed all armor was battle armor, yet in the same show they give evidence for elaborate show armor being used, with concerns for aesthetics the armor would not have been designed for maximum protection; and in my opinion most importantly the test was done with the sheet flat on another object, without space to dent the armor all the force had to be absorbed by the arrowhead vastly reducing its penetrating ability. -veridis

I would invite Anne Curry to test her theory by suiting up in some 15th century french armor and taking a few shots from an English longbow. If she thinks the most casualties were inflicted by crushing and trampling, comparing it to a football riot, maybe she should attend a match. Crushes don't kill 1/3 of those involved, no matter how big they are. Not in a football crowd, or a concert, or a battle. - Kafziel

In the "The Great Warbow" by Dr. Mattew Strickland and Robert Hardy, Pub Sutton, 2005, ISBN 0750931671 report on page 17 that the largest weigh group among the bows on the Mary Rose bows were between 68-72.5 kg (150-160 lbs). Previous to the research on the Mary Rose, known longbows from a much smaller sample, and using victorian estamates of strenth on some, had draw weight which were thought to be 32-46kg (60-100 lbs); (see longbows#Surviving bows). The weight of longbow arrows prior to the Mary Rose excavations was thought to be 52 grams, which was an invention of members of the British longbow society, (page 414) it is now known that the shafts were on average .80m (2'6'') long and 0.01 (0.5'') diameter (page 10) with a weight of between 100-115 grams (page 31). In case there is doubt about the size of the arrows there is one surviving arrow from another source which is kept in Westminster Abbey and is of a type to be loosed from a 68kg longbow (page 32).

As Robert Hardy write on page 414 "Those who deny or decry the effectiveness of the great warbow of the later Middle Ages deceive themselves and others"

BTW I do not think that growing inability of the longbow to penetrate 15th century armour" it is theory of Professor Anne Curry. Matthew Strickland in the Great Warbow praises her work on the numbers and organisation of the two armies and reports on page 288 that she says that her research on the records she has amassed will not be completed until about 2020. He goes on to say that thanks to her research the names of nearly all English archers who fought in France between the battle of Agincourt to debarcal at Castillon will be known.

--Philip Baird Shearer 01:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw this study on the History Channel last year. They used iron tipped arrows against steel plate armour and it didn’t penetrate. I believe the French charge failed because the combination of events and not just one factor. Death came in many forms to those knights and swordsmen. I’m sure some arrows did find their mark. Some falling horses and throwing the riders into the mud and some hitting soft points or gaps in the armour. I believe the terrain played the most decisive factor as it does in all battles. To say it was only the longbow is wrong. And I say if the English longbow was so effective against steel plate armour at 200 yards why would they eventually use a smoothbore musket which misfired and hardly be accurate at 80 yards. HUSZAR, July 28 2005.

troop count

The troop numbers dont seem to be correct, in the article it says:

Early on the 25th, St Crispin's day, Henry arrayed his little army (about 1000 men-at-arms, 6000 archers, and a few thousands of other foot).

Wich should mean they had about 9000 troops. But in the little summary on the right it says that the english had a troop count of 5,900. Which is the correct numbers?

Excellent question/point! No one really knows. I've seen figures all over the place for the strength of both armies and casualties also. I've edited the battlebox to reflect this. The English may have had as few as 5,000 or as many as 9, possibly even 10,000. The French as few as 12,000 or even over 30,000. The most likely, scenario, to my mind, is somewhere in between, with the English having circa 7,000 and the French circa 20,000 (Which Sir Charles Oman also saw as most likely). Henry had a small force of 2-300 select mounted knights to serve as his bodyguard and persoanal retenue. In some accounts they saw action with the King, in others they and King Hal just sat back, in others still they are'nt mentioned at all. Were they included in the "Men-at-Arms" figures? Some accounts also mention on the French side, several hundred of their knights who had swore a blood oath to seek out King Henry and slay him on the field (the "regicides"). But whether they existed as an organized unit or were the creation of later historians/storytellers is as well unknown. Given all these variations and estimates, We know about as much about Agincourt as we do the Battle of Hastings, fought in the same month 349 years earlier.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Siege of Harfleur length

In: "The siege of Harfleur took longer than expected (six weeks)."

Does "six weeks" refer to the length of time the siege was expected to take, or to the length of time actually taken for the siege? --abhi 11:55, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

good point. I have expanded the siege text to include dates. Away team turned up on August 13th, took two days to change, kick off was on the 18th. One month later on September 18th, the away team were going to win in a penalty shoot out, so the home team agreed to loose, (as they were worried about the behaviour of the away team fans) unless the police turned up by the 22nd. As the police did not turn up, the home team went down to the pub leaving the changing rooms to the away team. For some reason which is not clear the away team hung about for two weeks until the 8th of October when they decided to head for home, trying to evade arrest from the police on the way.

Take you pick the game started on the 13th of August and ended on the 8th of October just under 2 months. Or if it is playing time than it is 18th of August until 18th of September just over 4 weeks. It would seem to me that the siege lasted about as long as one would expect if it was contested. I guess that Henry had hoped for none contest, in which case it would have been over in days. It is not clear to me why he waited over two weeks after the seige ended before setting off for Calais. Perhapse some one who does can add the details to the siege page. Philip Baird Shearer 00:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of minor change

I just changed the wording of the paragraph about Henry's speech for I consider the word "great" rather inexpressive and inappropriately judgmental. Dedalus 22:19, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Delbruck's account

I'm surprised that no one has referred to Hanbs Delbruck's analysis of the battle in Geschichte der Kriegskunst. He argues that the size of the French army has been exaggerated by the medieval historians to make Henry V looks more heroic. Why, he asks, would an army with a massive superiority in numbers take up a position where it could not use that advantage to outflank its opponent? Instead, the French took up a position between two wooded areas, which no one would do if they did not need to protect their own flanks. A larger army would have taken up positions some way to the rear of those chosen historically, where there were open fields to each side. Moreover, since we now have the French plan of battle, we can see that their whole plan of campaign depended upon flank attacks upon the English. On the day, they deployed their troops differently, which leads one to suppose that there must have been some pressing reason so to do. Lack of numbers present with the field army, as opposed to having been promised, or marching to join the army explain this behaviour.

From this, and from a study of the actual space available to deploy the French army, he dismisses any idea of a 25 000 man force.

While it is a credible theory one must realise the the field at Agincourt was the most suitable in the immediate vicinity and it was this area where the French armies caught up to/intercepted the English. The opening cavalry charges directed at the flanks and eventual flanking around the forest indicate that the French were still aware of the advantage outflanking could hold for them and indeed that they had the numbers to outflank the English

-veridis

The figures for the French army were indeed exagerated. I have edited the article recently to provide new figures coming from a very serious research recently published by an English medieval historian. Hardouin 2 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Delbruck also provides outlandishly large figures for Roman armies. Numbers few historians or serious military students take seriously. Delbruck is interesting reading, but he was a German nationalist and a revisionist. As such I give him no more credence than I do David Irving . --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A slightly off-topic question

I remember hearing that some English families use a peculiar abbreviation-like form of middle name to denote that they have an ancestor that fought at Agincourt. Can anyone refresh my memory by telling me what that "abbreviation" is, and what it stands for? Too Old 17:15, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Incomplete archives

User Center-for-Medieval-Studies undermines Prof. Anne Curry's findings, arguing that the "incomplete nature of the records, especially on the French side" makes it difficult to estimate troop strength. I fear this is just another case of historical consevatism, or inability to accept new findings that debunk previously held beliefs. As far as I know, and I know a fair bit about French archives, all historians agree that French archives are the most voluminous and best preserved in the world, so I don't see why talking about bad archives, "especially on the French side". The Archives Nationales in Paris keep all the royal archives dating from before the Revolution, and these archives are extremely complete. The French Revolution and various wars did not damage the central government archives at all. For instance, I know for sure that the Archives Nationales possess all the records of the Parlement de Paris from 1254 to 1790 without a single missing year or month. If Center-for-Medieval-Studies has specific proofs that French finance records from the early 15th century are somewhat missing or incomplete, he/she should produce these proofs, because otherwise everything lead to believe that these records have survived time. I don't believe someone with the reputation of Anne Curry would have engaged in such a thorough research debunking a popular myth without some guarantee that the records are beyond dispute. Hardouin 5 July 2005 13:39 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for declaring that Prof. Curry's theories are, or are not, correct. It is appropriate to state new ideas and to describe the controversy, but we should strive to remain viewpoint-neutral. It seems to me that the statements in the current revision (16:17, 5 July 2005), that this theory has yet to be fully scrutinized by the scientific community, are respectful of Prof. Curry's ideas while retaining the proper degree of scientific skepticism. --Tisco 6 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

The problem is, these are not "theories", these are facts backed by documents. Hardouin 7 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

But the analysis of the documents has not been widely scrutinized, much less accepted, by the general scientific community. Until that happens, a good encyclopedia should not uncritically declare it to be true. --Tisco 7 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we had to take every new theory as certain fact we'd be in chaos. It is quite normal for two opposing sides of an argument to have historic 'documents' they don't prove an argument in and of themselves. Give it some time for proper peer review and counter arguments. As a general comment on all military 'records' of that age a healthy degree of scepticism is due. Military records are notorious for showing how many people were on the 'state' parole but frequently bad at telling us how many actually fought. You can lose huge numbers as sick/wounded/deserters/stragglers just as you can gain from direct recruitment or indirect attachment of friendly forces.Alci12