Talk:Battle of Agincourt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Primary sources section (original_research?)[edit]

See Archive 1: Primary sources section (original_research?) for previous discussion.

G or Z?[edit]

"English speakers found it easier to pronounce "Agincourt" with a "g" instead of the original "z" "

I do wonder if this is true. No reference is given. Another explanation is just as easily that factually the letters G, Z and Y are very easily confused in the writing of the period. Cassandra.

Schiltrons against cavalry[edit]

The article credits the archers with making use of pointed wooden staves, to defend against cavalry. But is that not a simplified version of the hand carried and ground-backed spear that the troops of Wallace and the Bruce used against the English? A formation of men so equipped was called a schiltron, and the story goes that at Bannockburn, in 1314, Robert the Bruce had even trained them to manoeuvre against the enemy. The deadly English archers that had destroyed the Scots line at Falkirk, could do nothing once the Scots had turned the combat into a melee. Their arrows would have killed Scots and English alike, quite possibly more of the latter, there being more of them. DaveyHume (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly special about the use of spears against cavalry by the Scots and even less reason to think that the use of stakes was a makeshift attempt to recreate them.Monstrelet (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Principality of Wales as a combatant.[edit]

The combatants parameter in the info box is defined thus :

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.

To include smaller groups than the main parties, we do need to have a reason of clarifying things for the reader. Including "Principality of Wales" is misleading because a) it is doubtful it existed as an independent entity at the time b) if it did, it was in open revolt against the English crown and therefore didn't contribute to the English war effort. Inclusion therefore misleads rather than clarifies. Monstrelet (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)