MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 5/25/2019 7:30:23 PM
 (???? - 1799 AD) Pre-19th Century Battles
AuthorMessage
jahenders
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 609

Agincourt
Posted on: 3/8/2019 10:38:40 AM
I came across this article and was interested to read that this professor is dramatically adjusting to relative troop strengths at Agincourt.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47427608

I can see how new scholarship, examination of additional records, etc. can provide new insights into history. However, I've certainly also seen many cases where professors work to make a name for themselves by taking a controversial (or politically popular/correct) view of some event in history. In some cases, that could lead one to choose to accept some records as accurate, while rejecting others as inaccurate. I also accept that there is a very real "fog of time" to history, where we simply can't have perfect information.

For example, I wonder whether her approach is an over-reliance on pay records and might not fully account for levy personnel on either side.

I was wondering whether anyone else has looked into this and has thoughts on this re-examination of this point in history.

Thanks,
Jim

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/8/2019 10:55:28 AM
Hi Jim On the ground the French outnumbered the English by as much as 4-1.the English had about 7-8000 all told

Only around 1,500 of the 9,000-strong English army were men-at-arms and knights – the rest were archers, who were armed with their longbows and, occasionally, knives or poleaxes.

And many great archers came from Wales, and, having fought against Henry’s father at Shrewsbury, had decided to switch loyalties. When the French cavalry charged, the bowmen began to shoot their arrows from behind makeshift barricades made of wooden stakes.

Hundreds upon hundreds of long shafts flew through the air, hitting their target and wreaking havoc among the French army. Many rows of Frenchmen were killed before they could even reach the English while the English lost only a few men in the struggle.

Once their arrows were exhausted, the archers charged at the men with their weapons and joined the knights in hand-to-hand combat.

Many an armoured French knight fell dead through asphyxiation by mud blocking his breathing slits.
e lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties (dead, wounded, taken prisoner). However, it is clear that though the English were outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French.

The French sources all give 4,000–10,000 French dead, with up to 1,600 English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more men than the English. It has been possible to name at least 500 individuals from the French army killed in the battle and over 300 prisoners.


Regards

Jim

---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

Phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Moderator
Posts: 3850

Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/8/2019 2:12:53 PM
Wasn’t there a notorious episode in the battle - some would prefer the word atrocious - when Henry ordered that the French knights and men at arms who had been captured must be killed ?

This went against the custom of war at the time, ; it breached the code, and, to the dismay of the English, deprived the captors of their ransom money.

Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

jahenders
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 609

Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/8/2019 4:17:25 PM

Quote:
Hi Jim On the ground the French outnumbered the English by as much as 4-1.the English had about 7-8000 all told

Only around 1,500 of the 9,000-strong English army were men-at-arms and knights – the rest were archers, who were armed with their longbows and, occasionally, knives or poleaxes.

And many great archers came from Wales, and, having fought against Henry’s father at Shrewsbury, had decided to switch loyalties. When the French cavalry charged, the bowmen began to shoot their arrows from behind makeshift barricades made of wooden stakes.

Hundreds upon hundreds of long shafts flew through the air, hitting their target and wreaking havoc among the French army. Many rows of Frenchmen were killed before they could even reach the English while the English lost only a few men in the struggle.

Once their arrows were exhausted, the archers charged at the men with their weapons and joined the knights in hand-to-hand combat.

Many an armoured French knight fell dead through asphyxiation by mud blocking his breathing slits.
e lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties (dead, wounded, taken prisoner). However, it is clear that though the English were outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French.

The French sources all give 4,000–10,000 French dead, with up to 1,600 English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more men than the English. It has been possible to name at least 500 individuals from the French army killed in the battle and over 300 prisoners.

Regards
Jim
-anemone



All that is as I've generally understood it.
The professor noted above did some research based on pay records and asserts that the French numbers were much lower and the two sides much more equal.

I'm wondering whether that seems probable or is just an attempt to "make a name for herself" by revising history in a controversial way.

Jim

Phil andrade
London, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major
Moderator
Posts: 3850

Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/8/2019 5:25:13 PM
It spoils a damned good story !

What’s become of David and Goliath ?

Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes

jahenders
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
top 20
E-7 Sgt First Class


Posts: 609

Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/10/2019 9:09:45 AM

Quote:
It spoils a damned good story !

What’s become of David and Goliath ?

Regards, Phil
--Phil andrade


True, if her research is accepted, it reduces the underdog tale. That's OK if she's also correct, but not if wrong.

Funny you should mention David and Goliath, I watched this Ted talk a while ago. In it, this guy basically tries to destroy the literal David and Goliath match up.
Frankly, I think this guy (the Ted talk) is totally ludicrous, willfully misinterpreting phrases in such a way as to support his dumb theory.

https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_the_unheard_story_of_david_and_goliath?language=en

Jim

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/10/2019 10:24:42 AM
Yes Henry did order the killing of his prisoners. Against the "rules" of the time
Some French had ridden behind Henry's position and plundered the baggage train. Also against the "rules" the French killed many of the boys with the train
Hearing that the French were behind him, believing he was outnumbered, and encumbered with a large number of prisoners, he made the only possible decision. Kill the prisoners. This was a huge decision as far the money lost in ransom.
Henry believed he was heavily outnumbered. His army was tired, sick, and trying just to escape France. Each day of marching cost a lost of men and material while the French gathered more men.
New history doesn't made it right history

anemone
DONCASTER S. YORKS, UK
top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 7854
http:// 82.44.47.99
Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/11/2019 5:53:07 AM

Quote:
New history doesn't made it right history.
==Spot on John

Henry ordered the slaughter of what were perhaps several thousand French prisoners---a grisly task, sparing only the highest ranked (presumably those most likely to fetch a large ransom under the chivalric system of warfare).


Regards

Jim
---------------
Pro Patria Saepe Pro Rege Semper

john hayward
Allenstown, NH, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 561

Re: Agincourt
Posted on: 3/11/2019 10:06:01 AM
It seems that Henry may have panicked. The fighting had stopped and his men were exhausted. Many had removed their armor, and were tending to their wounds or wounded comrades. The battle itself was a near run thing.From his vantage place Henry could see the portion of the French forces not engaged in the first action gathering and what appeared to be fresh reinforcements arriving. Honor dictated that with fresh forces the French should mount another attack. The large number of prisoners posed a threat if the French did attack.
In order to save his men Henry ordered the prisoners to be killed so they could not kill. He mostly likely informed the French of his actions, part to pressure the French to refrain from an attack. The French did know he was doing this, either by English heralds or they could hear the screams of the dying.
interesting point that Henry was not criticized at the time for his actions. Perhaps because it was seen as militarily necessary.
By his actions Henry believed he was outnumbered by a large amount, maybe not as large as Shakespeare stated but large enough.

 Forum Ads from Google