Talk:Battle of Agincourt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Agincourt article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force French military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)
WikiProject Echo has identified Battle of Agincourt as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish or Hebrew language Wikipedias.

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

Contents 1 A Frenchman obviously wrote it 2 A modified explanation of the battle 3 troop count 4 Siege of Harfleur length 5 Explanation of minor change 6 Delbruck's account 7 A slightly off-topic question 8 Incomplete archives 9 A biased opinion 10 Some confusion 11 Not Danegeld 12 Another fact 13 The Campaign 14 Inconsistency regarding the use of palings at the Battle of Crecy 15 First Paragraph 16 lack of sources 17 Casualties 18 Sources for numbers and casualties 19 Anecdote about Henry V 20 Bowshot 21 Sir Peers Legh and his dog 22 5000 prisoners massacred by the English 23 Modern reassessment section 24 Image of battle formation 25 Reaching consensus on where we should put the fact a significant proportion of the "English" army was Welsh 26 Citations 27 Was the longbow instrumental in winning Agincourt? 28 Terrain 29 Longbows and horses

[edit] A Frenchman obviously wrote it

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)

While it's debatable whether he was a war criminal, it's foolish to suggest there was no hint of international law at the time. See Christine de Pizan's discussion of just war and the treatment of prisoners in the Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry. -Andy

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)

The article lists Crispin's Day as October 24. According to the Catholic Calendar of Feast Days, it is October 25. Secondly, the article is displayed as a selected anniversary for the 25th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.91.129.20 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.202.124 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 October 2004 (UTC)

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 13:34, 13 July 2005

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.

The musket actually had a greater range than the longbow, if used in indirect fire; Hardy and Strickland gloss over this point in Great Warbow, and compare the direct fire range of the gun with the indirect range of the bow, not like with like. Supplies of suitable bowstaves also began to dwindle, making the longbow no longer a cheaply available weapon for the masses. It is also true that as armours improved and longbows had to have a greater draw-weight to achieve penetration, accuracy dropped off greatly - which is why the bows for target shooting that 19th century writers based their studies on did not exceed 50 to 70 lbs draw or so. Lastly, there would come a point where the draw-weight needed to achieve penetration exceeded that which an archer could manage. Crossbows and muskets had no such problems, though they did have others. All of these other factors are covered in Hardy and Strickland.[December 11 2005]

they switched to muskets because it didn't require a lifetimes worth of work to master and it increased the central governments control if every peasant couldn't kill one of their lords if they pissed them of too much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.82.235 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What you saw on the history channel was not iron tipped arrows against steel plate armour but against a plain steel plate placed flat upon a bench. It had not been bent or shaped so was much stronger than armour made of the same plate, it was placed flat so could not distort helping it maintain its structural strength. Look at any piece of metal that has been pierced and you will notice there is a large dent around it, not just a sudden hole. By preventing this denting from happening by using a plate flat on a bench they made it much more resistant. -veridis

With regard to the longbow vs. musket discussion, according to "Napoleonic weapons and tactics" by Philip J. Haythornthwaite, if the longbowmen of this period had been pitted against the armies of Napoleonic times they would certainly have been able to outshoot almost any of them, with the added benefits of targets not being obscured by smoke and a longbow being slightly cheaper than a musket. In fact a leader of the time urged the Brittish gov. to start using longbows again. However as has been said it was rejected on the grounds that a man could be trained to use a musket in a day, while it might take years for a man to become proficient with a longbow plus a longbow's performance could also be effected by wind. Sorry for off topic but it's a fairly interesting discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.232.90 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

It is most likly that Enguerrand the Monstrelet gave the correct numbers, since he would have no motive of faking them, and he gives them only 38 years afterwards. Its also the most plausible and logical nummbers. I believe 900 men-at-arms is too few either way. An interesting way to measure this could be to check if the area can have 900 men formed up into at a line of at least 2-3 men thick. If not the english would had to have more men. And also an archer is no match for a heavy infantry in hand-to-hand combat. However if the English had 13000 or 5000 archers the french losses would been massive as they moved to the alleged english 900-men line, as they would face 5000 - 13000 arrows sevral times each minutte. But 900 men is just to few, you would need at least 1500 to make a stand. Battle expert

38 years is actually quite a long time when there is so little in the way of previous written records to refer back to. A lot of the people who had been at the battle would have been dead. Also the biggest problem with Enguerrand's figures is they seem far too high for the English. Even Anne Curry, who has been revising the odds in the victory down as much as she can, doesn't think the English had more than about 8,000. It's generally accepted that Henry only landed with an army of about 12,000. The biggest arguments are about how many of these were in a fit state at Agincourt, with the low estimate being about 6,000 (this was the 'standard' figure for a long time, e.g. it's used in the Encyclopedia Britannica) and the high estimate being about 9,000. I've not aware of a modern historian who thinks the English had 13,000 at Agincourt.

As to the line of English men-at-arms, as I understand it they were packed quite tightly, with archers on each flank protected by palings. The palings would have been less of an obstacle to knights on foot than knights on horseback, but you also have to remember that medieval knights were quite hung up on honour. You get honour (and booty) from hacking down enemy knights, not enemy commoners. Also, although there are arguments about how effective longbows were against full plate, they certainly had a far better chance of penetrating at point-blank range, so it would have been a brave knight who walked slowly, in the mud, around some wooden stakes while being shot at from a couple of metres. On the other hand, the longbowmen couldn't safely shoot at the French men-at-arms if they were engaged hand-to-hand with the English men-at-arms, for fear of hitting their own troops. The French men-at-arms apparently seem to have just engaged the English men-at-arms, on the same frontage as the English (which caused them all sorts of problems because of congestion), and ignored the longbowmen until they were rushed from the sides (when the English men-at-arms were pushed back). The suggestion is that because of a) the fatigue of the French men-at-arms after walking in thick mud wearing full plate b) the casualties they had already taken from bowfire c) the greater agility of the unarmoured longbowmen in the mud and d) the fact that the French were so tightly packed they couldn't fight properly, that the intervention of some of the longbowmen in the melee was sufficient to turn the tide against the French.

--Merlinme 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, I think it's the Hutchinson encylopedia which gives the figures as 6,000 for the English. The online 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Henry arrayed his little army (about r000 men-at-arms, 6000 archers, and a few thousands of other foot...". r000 is a rather annoying figure, I assume caused by bad scanning! 1,000 would fit with other versions. The total number is significantly more than 6,000, however the same article also says of the French: "They were at least four times more numerous than the English, but restricted by the nature of the ground to the same extent of front". (If you're curious, a lot of the account of the battle in the current Wikipedia article is lifted almost verbatim from the 1911 EB.) Alternatively you can go with Anne Curry's research, which broadly agree with the EB for the English, but put the French army as far smaller (12,000) than any other source that I am aware of.

--Merlinme 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg's version of the EB1911 does say "...(about 1000 men-at-arms,..."

—wwoods 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think at any rate, though the French army was often overstated and the English numbers vary, the credit due to the latter must not be lost. The English army had provisioning issues and were most likely exhausted. They had been marching frantically, yet, however, still conquered odds at Agincourt and gained an important victory over the French, who were fresh and in all likeliness well supported by the country round. LoreTj 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.202.124 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 October 2004 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] A biased opinion

I think Anne Currys theory may have some truth behind it. It is not the first time an English king has used propaganda to bolster his reputatuion. (Such as Richard the Lionheart). I think that it is possible the numbers have become warped over the years, but i disagree about the exact figures she has given. I think they're a theory, nothing more. Anne's theory may also be biased in some other way, as often is with "experts". I do also have one other peice of information which i am adding, which is an account i have read of the battle. (I read it in an old history book entitiled "the sceptered isle") is that although the French armor was on the whole too strong to be peirced by Bodkin Arrows, the horses were mostly unarmored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.121.83 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree, I have read Anne Curry's book and it appears to be based on theories. Theories that have been proven wrong, I managed to watch a programme that interviewed a roit control officer, who stated that there was no possible way for the French to become famously tightly packed with the numbers that Curry states. This implies 2 things: 1 The Vangaurd was even bigger than what Curry stated (Curry supports the Vangaurd was enlarged). Or 2 The Number of French were vastly bigger, a view that is supported by most historians and 'reliable' sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Some confusion

Might be just me misunderstanding it, but the following lines kind of contradict eachother:

"The English archers being thrown forward in wedge-shaped salients with spikes in the ground to cause a horse charge to veer off, almost exactly as at the Battle of Crécy"

and

"The archers dug-in pointed wooden stakes called palings, at an angle, to ward off cavalry charges, and opened the engagement with flights of arrows. It should be noted that these palings were an innovation. At Crécy and Poitiers, two other similar battles between the French and the English, the archers had not had them." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.237.177 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Danegeld

I removed the remarks about Danegeld. Ransom is not an example of Danegeld, nor was this a technique of extortion practiced by english kings. Danegeld was brought to England by the Danes, and is thought to be a type of tribute. -CW (70.26.11.45 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

The English kings for several centuries practiced extortion by invading France and then being paid to go away. This has nothing to do with the paying of ransom for captured nobility. Danegeld can be used figrative expression of speach for this type of behaviour as well as its litural meaning. As Kipling put it:

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,

And the people who ask it explain

That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld

And then you’ll get rid of the Dane! [1]

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The comparison between Danegeld and randsom for captured knights is truly absurd. Danegeld was money given to the Danes to that they would not raid England. Asking for money in return for returning captured nobles is something completely diffrent. I'll delete the lines concerning danegeld. Krastain 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another fact

Twelve French knights took oath that that day (the day of the clash at Azincourt) they would either kill King Henry or fall in battle. What happened is that only one of them came near Henry and broke his crown with his sword in one place. The original crown (with evidence of this, with the swordmark and all) is kept in Westminster Abbey. 'Tis true! :)

I'm surprised that in the article there is no mention about this event that actually took place during the battle.

So... if someone would enter this into the text, I would be grateful. My knowledge of English is not that good, so I wouldn't leave that job to me.

Thanx anyway!

Yankovich 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Campaign

The paragraph "The Campaign" does not reflect the historical realities of the time. Specifically what lands were rules by either the King of France and the King of England (and others) are not explained. There are many other areas where the article could be improved substantially, I just read the first para and felt the need to fire off this, so who knows what I'll be like when I've finished the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.241.101 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency regarding the use of palings at the Battle of Crecy

Under "The battle", the first paragraph contains this sentence:

"The English archers being thrown forward in wedge-shaped salients with spikes in the ground to cause a horse charge to veer off, almost exactly as at the Battle of Crécy."

The fourth paragraph contains these statements, in direct contradiction: "Near 400 yards from the French line the archers dug-in pointed wooden stakes called palings, at an angle, to ward off cavalry charges, and opened the engagement with a single flight of arrows. It should be noted that these palings were an innovation. At Crécy and Poitiers, two other similar battles between the French and the English, the archers had not had them."

In the article on the "Battle of Crécy", there is this statement: "the English built a system of ditches, pits and caltrops to maim and bring down the enemy cavalry."

No mention of the palings, but it doesn't rule out their possible use. I don't know which one is correct, but if I find out I'll come back and correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.74.6.173 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Whoever has this article on their watchlist please fix this contradiction! 195.90.9.88 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

This (2nd) sentence should be rewritten in my opinion: "The battle was fought on a rainy day, the feast day of Saint Crispin, between the English and Welsh army of King Henry V and the French army of King Charles VI." The mention of feast day and rainy day make it seem awkward.Godloveslamb 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Factually, the real problem with the sentence is that it does not convey that it had been raining for more than just that day. I'm sure if the battle were fought with only the moisture of a sun shower on the ground, then there would have been a different weather dynamic at play.

I changed the version in which the second sentence ended "...the Hundred Years' War on a rainy day," which implied a very long day indeed. I left the rain out of this sentence, since the paragraph is only the introduction. The discussion of the battle points up the effect that rain (and especially the condition of the ground) had on the battle. — OtherDave 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically, parenthetically inserting "the feast day of Saint Crispin" as a sort of appositive is highly problematic, but, hey, the guy took the time to put his paper up on the site, so more power to him.67.87.6.214

[edit] lack of sources

This article really needs to cite which sources are being used, in particular for the hard numbers on troops strengths, which keep changing. -- Stbalbach 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Can we be a little more decisive about the issue of casualties? I recognise it's a difficult issue, but could we at least suggest a range? Henry may have been trying to conceal the scale of the English losses, but surely we can do better than 'English losses were lower than the French'. The old Encyclopedia Britannica puts English casualties at 450; if we're going to disagree with this, then I think we have to cite reliable sources. There is a world of difference between a battle in which there were 5,000 French casualties and 500 English, and a battle in which there were 5,000 French casualties and, say, 4,000 English, which the article seems to imply at the moment. Given that, certainly after taking into account those killed and captured in the aftermath of the battle, I don't think anyone would dispute that the French lost quite badly, I'm going to take the liberty of modifying the text to say that the English losses were much lower than the French.

--145.221.52.69 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)--145.221.52.70 13:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keegan, in The Face of Battle, says "English casualties had been few: the Duke of York...and the Earl of Suffolk were the only notable fatalities. The wounded numbered only some hundreds..." He adds that the English wounds would have been mainly lacerations and fractures, which if not fatal could be treated. Many of the French, by contrast, would have suffered penetration wounds from arrows or other weapons thrust through weak points in armor. Such wounds led more quickly to serious infection. Those with severe wounds who survived the battle but remained on the field overnight were likely killed the following day, if they had not already died. Keegan says that the bishop of Arras engaged peasants to bury the dead at the site, and adds "they are said to have buried about 6,000 altogether." — OtherDave 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for numbers and casualties

It appears to be a losing battle to keep the figures consistent, so I suggest we adopt a range approach. i.e. The English army was between 6,000 and 9,000.

If people are going to change these to their own favourite version, could they at least please tell the rest of us where to find these figures, and (more importantly) why we should believe these more than any other figures. While I recognise the Enyclopedia Britannica is not a definitive source, it's quite noticeable that it quotes the French army as 20-30,000, which is 2/3 of the figure we have today (36,000).

--Merlinme 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a lot of edits to the numbers. I've settled on 6,000 for the English (which virtually everyone except Anne Curry uses) and 20-30,000 for the French, with notes to see the 'Modern re-assessment' where the controversy is discussed in more detail.

I have no doubt that someone will come along and change this to the figures they saw in a TV programme a few years ago, but we can but try. I'd like to add the "Controverisal" template to the numbers and casualties section, but I've just tried it, and it makes a mess if the Battle Box, so I've left it out.

--Merlinme 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to the article if there were a separate section on troop numbers and casualties, with the Controversial tag. The fact is the sources don't agree, and I think it's correct to tell the reader this. It might also help stop all the to-ing and fro-ing with different numbers being used. Suggested format:

"A Note on Troop Numbers and Casualties"

Controversial tag

Discussion of the different numbers used. Give sources for the different numbers. Explain why one particular set of numbers is used in the article. [Alternatively, we could try and avoid using numbers elsewhere in the article. Or we could use a range of numbers elsewhere in the article.]

A lot of the material from 'A modern re-assessment' could be moved here, because in my opinion 'A modern re-assessment' should be all about Curry's attempt to establish the numbers using things like records of payment. The other sections (discussing numbers more generally) could be moved to the new section.

The "Note" should go near the top, so people read it early on, and don't start changing the numbers in the Battle Box.

--Merlinme 09:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdote about Henry V

I'm leaving this in because it's a good story and I don't think it does any harm, as long as people realise it's a story. However I've taken out the bit about how the king fought more bravely than anyone else, because I can't find a source for it (and neither could anybody else, the "citation needed" has been there for a couple of weeks), and it sounds rather implausible. The King fought more bravely than any of the other 30,000 or so people in the battle? Said who? How on earth would you prove it? If it's supported at all in original sources, I would imagine it must have been said by one of the King's courtiers, or possibly an English storyteller. Neither would be an unbiased source.

Please put it back in if you can come up with a plausible source for the claim.

--Merlinme 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowshot

The battle section says "Within extreme bowshot from the French line (400 yards), the archers dug in pointed wooden stakes called palings, at an angle, to ward off cavalry charges, and opened the engagement with a barrage of arrows."

John Keegan, in The Face of Battle, says that "extreme bowshot" is traditionally calculated at 300 yards. "That is a tremendous carry for a bow, however" he says, "and 250 yard would be a more realistic judgement of the distance....If, however, [Henry's] archer flanks were thrown a little forward, his center would have been farther off....something between 250 and 300 yards is a reasonable bracket..."

— OtherDave 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Peers Legh and his dog

What is this ridiculus story about a dog warding a dead body for hours in the middle of a battle? Is there a reliable source for this (other then some history of fighting dogs), a contemporary text maybe? Krastain 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5000 prisoners massacred by the English

Surely this deserves a paragraph and a heading in contents, particularlt when such notation is given to someone's dog, for goodness sake. XSebX 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern reassessment section

I've rewritten this somewhat, it had become a bit of a mess. Apart from minor errors which crept in, and some superfluous material, Ashmoo had deleted a lot of the text about Anne Curry. According to Ashmoo's comments, it's not Wikipedia's business to make predictions (I assume about which historian will be proved correct).

I take the point, but removing a couple of paragraphs about Curry completely changed the balance of this section, until it became a bit unclear why it was called 'a modern reassessment'. Also we have to have some way of saying that Curry may well be right, but currently her research is unsupported by other people.

This would all get a bit easier if I got around to creating my paragraph on casualties. I will do at some point, honest. Then the Modern Reassessment section can be much more focused on what Curry said.

--Merlinme 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of battle formation

The image of the battle formation does not match the description that is given in the text and seems to be very misleading. Thefuguestate 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaching consensus on where we should put the fact a significant proportion of the "English" army was Welsh

As far as I can see it:

argument for: it's true (although it would be nice to see a reference and an estimate of the exact proportion)

argument against: it's a bit distracting when trying to understand the article. A large proportion of the French army may well have been Italian for all I know; how relevant is this?

The suggestion was that the reference to the Welsh would be better placed later in the article-perhaps when discussing the armies in detail?- rather than in the opening 'campaign' section.

Any thoughts appreciated.

--Merlinme 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Henry was very severely wounded by an arrow from a Welsh archer at the Battle of Shrewsbury, during the rebellion of Welsh prince Owen Glendower. The story of how his absolvitory and inclusive policies later enabled him to recruit Welsh soldiers into his army, with complete confidence, is notable and worth including somewhere. However, it's not really part of the story of Agincourt. Many of the original indentures for the supply of troops to the campaign are preserved, as are the exchequer rolls recording who received money to pay wages, so there is probably some published research identifying which parts of the realm supplied what troops. Unfortunately I haven't been able to trace any of this, but given the emphasis in England at the time on the training of archers I would be surprised if a "significant proportion" at Agincourt were Welsh. --Old Moonraker 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is very little in history that isn't disputed and making a ridged statement requires ridged facts, otherwise we need to be more nuanced and further expand an idea with historiographical references. -- Stbalbach 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Someone's added three citation comments, two of which I think are fair enough. If anyone has access to some good books on the subject, now is your opportunity...

Otherwise I might be forced to go out and buy some myself, or possibly get some from the library.

The two citations we're looking for are: the composition of the French army (professional and disciplined vs. ill disciplined levy); and at least one example of a modern historian who thinks English were outnumbered at least 3-1.

--Merlinme 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was the longbow instrumental in winning Agincourt?

Personally I think the answer is a resounding "Yes", but if someone can explain to me why this might not be the case, I'm happy to have the discussion.

--Merlinme 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from above there are some different views on the subject. Also there is the question if the English really was that inferior in numbers.[2] Also the Battlefield Detectives: Agincourt's Dark Secrets had dubts about the role of the longbow.[3]. It may still be the longbowmen that contributed to the English victory, but not the longbow, bur rather short swords, hammers and such close range weapons. OK, these shows get ratings by presenting "new findings", but it can't just be dismissed. // Liftarn

None of this is new, though. We have had enormous trouble with the Agincourt article incorporating Curry's work. I have immense respect for the research she's done, however it's surely clear that this is deliberate revisionism. To use a quote from the link you gave: '“The figures have been exaggerated over the centuries for patriotic reasons,” said Curry, whose book Agincourt: A New History will be published next month. “It was a myth constructed around Henry to build up his reputation as a king.”' She called it 'a new history' and then gave good soundbites, shortly before her book was published. And good luck to her, but surely it's clear that there is an agenda; and just because it's revisionist, doesn't mean it's right.

The fact is she disagrees with just about every other historian who's looked at it, and also the contemporary (admittedly rather unreliable) sources, including the French sources. That doesn't mean she's wrong, but it does mean we should be cautious in accepting everything she says, especially when the book was only published a couple of years ago. I would be very surprised if someone didn't publish a book within the next twenty years which strenuously disagrees with her. With that in mind, it seems sensible to use the previous consensus on numbers when writing the article, but explain the controversy in a separate section, which is what we've done.

As for the effectiveness of the longbow, I do find this rather strange. Undoubtedly armour had moved on since Crecy; but why were the English even bothering to fire if they were completely ineffective! Much is made of the fact that longbows could not penetrate 2mm thick steel plate; but the fact is that not all the French would have been wearing full plate armour, it would not all have been of a uniformly high quality, and even when it was high quality, there were still places (e.g. joints) where arrows could penetrate. The horses were also worse protected than their riders. Medieval English archers carried approximately 48 arrows. They fired a few to start the battle, and then would presumably have been firing at nearly maximum speed through the French cavalry charge and then the men-at-arms advance. The cavalry charge was by all accounts a disaster. Bearing in mind how heavily armoured they were and the mud, the men-at-arms would have been advancing at little more than a jog for the last 100 yards (when the English would have hoped their arrows would be effective). If we say it took them 20-30 seconds to close that distance, that's enough time for the longbowmen to fire four or five shots into the scrum, or approximately 25,000 arrows. This would have been repeated several times as different French waves approached and then retreated. This would have been daunting, to say the least, and the footing would not have been made any easier when the men-at-arms were continuously being buffeted by arrows. The fact that the French were still able to engage the English line suggests strongly that the longbow was not as lethal as it had been, but it seems extraordinary to me to suggest that it caused no casualties at all. If even 1% of 50,000 arrows found a chink in the armour, that's 500 casualties out of 6,000. If 5% of 100,000 arrows hit something significant, that's 5,000 casualties out of 6,000.

Obviously this is all wild speculation. I have no idea how you would prove things one way or the other. But I certainly don't see why the revisionist account is obviously correct.

Incidentally, the link you gave to Battlefield Detectives I think is rather misleading. It seems to imply in the bottom diagram that the English had more men-at-arms than longbowmen, when in fact there were approximately 4 times more longbowmen than men-at-arms.

With all this in mind, I struggle to see why you would disagree that the consensus view is that the longbow helped the English to overcome superior numbers at Agincourt. I am highly dubious that the far greater numbers of French men-at-arms would have been beaten (even with the mud, the crowd, and the longbowmen attacking them with their handweapons), if their advance had not been disrupted by the longbow fire.

--Merlinme 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just two positions like a) the longbow singlehandedly won the battle or b) the longbow was utterly useless. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween with many different factors affecting the outcome of the battle. SO the bold thatement about the role of the longbow surely needs a proper source. Especially when there are conflicting views. // Liftarn

The statement is that the longbow 'helped the English compensate for their inferior numbers'. It is not: 'the longbow singlehandedly won Agincourt for the English'. I am not even sure that you are disagreeing that the longbow HELPED the English compensate for inferior numbers of (at least) 1.5-1, with most historians going with higher figures. With this in mind, I am therefore going to remove your "citation needed" from that sentence in the introduction.

--Merlinme 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I say that the longbow itself had nothing to do with the victory. There are other factors that are far more important. // Liftarn

Well then I guess we will have to continue to disagree. You are supporting a revisionist position, I am not. I simply do not see how you can ignore the weapon used by approximately 4/5 of the winning side when considering factors which helped the winning side overcome a significant disadvantage in numbers. You appear to be implying that the English would have still won the battle if the longbowmen had been armed with nothing but hand weapons, and I don't think that is supported by the evidence. If between six and nine thousand heavily armed and armoured French men-at-arms (in the first line) had walked up to the English lines and engaged 1,000 English men-at-arms, then I do not see how the intervention of 5,000 lightly armed soldiers would have been enough to compensate, even allowing for the crush and the mud. It was the men-at-arms' job to fight in a melee, the longbowmen were not particularly trained for this. There is no suggestion that the English men-at-arms were significantly better trained, led or equipped than the French. So either you think the longbow helped the English to win, or you essentially think that 5,000 unarmoured, untrained men were able to overwhelm a larger sized force of professional and well-equipped soldiers, with minimal casualties.

I agree with your earlier statement that "The truth is probably somewhere inbetween with many different factors affecting the outcome of the battle". You may have noticed that I have now changed the account of the fighting to emphasise that advances in armour allowed the French to close, even under a hail of fire. However to say "the longbow itself had nothing to do with the victory" seems far too strong.

--Merlinme 13:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the controversial statement with the factual one that longbowmen made up the vast majority of the English army. Personally I think you can draw the conclusion from this that the longbow helped in achieving the victory, but you are welcome to draw different conclusions if you wish.

--Merlinme 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrain

There are a couple of references to a defile, or gorge, constraining the French advance, whereas the action took place in a shallow valley; it was woodland that had the funnelling effect. (The form of the land can be confirmed on Google Earth, although the woodland is now much reduced in favor of agriculture of course). Subject to other editors' views, I propose to change this. --Old Moonraker 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd noticed myself that most of the accounts actually refer to the woods constraining movement rather than the sides of a gorge as such. I'd somewhat uncritically kept the accounts of a "defile" because I assumed someone had put it in for a reason and I didn't have anything which directly contradicted it. Also the implication of the Battlefield Detectives site (where they use contour mapping to analyse how the area available to the French declined) is that the contours of the landscape do matter.

Provided you're changing the article based on an analysis of the map and the contours of the land I have no problem with you emphasising the woodland over the gorge. However if we do this then it must raise some questionmarks over the Battlefield Detectives work. Do you have access to maps of the area? How significant are the contours that can be seen on the Battlefield Detectives link?

--Merlinme 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm keen to do this because of WP:NOR, I'm afraid – a visit to the battlefield while passing through the area: it's still easily identifiable on the ground from the positions of the villages of Tramacourt and Azincourt. It's all quite flat and the contours do not seem significant to the modern eye (although my "battlefield expert" on the day was a former cold war tank commander – not necessarily representative of a C15 soldier's viewpoint!). This picture from flckr is nicely representative.

Obviously I'll need some surer sourcing than this before I add to the page; it's harder to prove than something isn't there than show where it is! I'm trying to find my modern map of the area; this might do as a reliable source if I can lay my hands on it, otherwise I'll hold back until I can cite something. Old Moonraker 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just had a quick look at the 1911 EB, and lo and behold, that's where the word "defile" comes from. The original quote is: "The battle was fought in the defile formed by the wood of Agincourt and that of Tramecourt." This has been muddied by someone helpfully explaining that defile = gorge. Looking it up in the dictionary, I think it's probably rather more likely (given the context) that defile is being used in the sense of "narrow passage". It's also noticeable that the EB 1911 makes no mention whatsoever of the ground available to the French narrowing.

Where this leaves the Battlefield Detectives work I'm not completely sure. Not for the first time on Wikipedia, castles may have been erected on shaky foundations!

In any case, I don't think you modifying the article to emphasise the woods vs. the non-existent gorge would be Original Research at all, if anything it would tally better with other versions. Please go ahead. To start with I'm going to change the link for defile because I think it's deeply misleading.

--Merlinme 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ive been able to use the Battlefields Detectives "book to accompany the series" as one of the sources, as it describes woodland, not contours, as providing the containment of the battlefield. --Old Moonraker 10:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longbows and horses

Some excellent work done to the article to remove the defile/ gorge/ woodland confusion. However, I'm not sure about the sentence:

"Keegan (1976) argues that the weapons' main effect was on the horses: only armoured on the head, many could become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation shots used as the charge started."

Given that 90% of the French knights attacked on foot, is this really relevant?

--Merlinme 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit dubious about dipping a toe into the long-running longbow debate! I cited Keegan for the above sentence, but Barker too, while certainly not disputing the figures you offer, lays emphasis on the significance of the French cavalry charge and the effect of arrows on the horses. I've now expanded this slightly to include her point: how the returning horses added to the confusion and press of the advancing men-at-arms of their own side. --Old Moonraker 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it reads better now.

--Merlinme 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all good changes, but I've rearranged the text to make it easier to follow the chronology, i.e. mounted charge (and retreat) first, followed by men-at-arms advance (which was probably disrupted by knights' retreat).

--Merlinme 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping with the chronology makes it much clearer - it's an improvement. Old Moonraker 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)