modern progress…

Posted on Monday 26 October 2009

The news cycle has been something of a bore of late – not much going on. But that leaves time for an excursion or two. Now here’s a mythbuster of the first magnitude. Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt. Facing overwhelming odds, the British prevailed because of the accuracy and skill of the English yoemen with long-bows that rained arrows on the helpless French crossbowmen. It’s the stuff of legend, and of Robin Hood. Well, let’s face it, it’s a cornerstone of Western Civilization. But now comes the naysayer to burst the bubble:
Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt
The New York Times

By JAMES GLANZ
October 24, 2009

No one can ever take away the shocking victory by Henry and his “band of brothers,” as Shakespeare would famously call them, on St. Crispin’s Day, Oct. 25, 1415. They devastated a force of heavily armored French nobles who had gotten bogged down in the region’s sucking mud, riddled by thousands of arrows from English longbowmen and outmaneuvered by common soldiers with much lighter gear. It would become known as the Battle of Agincourt.

But Agincourt’s status as perhaps the greatest victory against overwhelming odds in military history — and a keystone of the English self-image — has been called into doubt by a group of historians in Britain and France who have painstakingly combed an array of military and tax records from that time and now take a skeptical view of the figures handed down by medieval chroniclers.

The historians have concluded that the English could not have been outnumbered by more than about two to one. And depending on how the math is carried out, Henry may well have faced something closer to an even fight, said Anne Curry, a professor at the University of Southampton who is leading the study.

Those cold figures threaten an image of the battle that even professional researchers and academics have been reluctant to challenge in the face of Shakespearean verse and centuries of English pride, Ms. Curry said.

“It’s just a myth, but it’s a myth that’s part of the British psyche,” Ms. Curry said…
War was more civilized in the 15th Century — and more honest. The Kings of England wanted to be Kings of France too [and vica versa]. Back then, they weren’t so hung up on having a Casus Belli, greed was a fine reason for war. So they fought for a very long time eg The Hundred Years War. About this time of year in 1415, Henry V lead his [reportedly] outnumbered army against the French Lords:
While Henry V led his troops into battle and actually participated in hand to hand fighting, the French king of the time, Charles VI, did not command the French army himself as he suffered from mental illness and delusions which rendered him incapacitated. Instead the French were commanded by Constable Charles d’Albret and various prominent French noblemen… [link]
Also, back then, mental illness in the leadership was apparently no cause for alarm either:
… The king [Charles VI of France] continued to suffer from periods of mental illness throughout his life. During one attack in 1393, Charles could not remember his name and did not know he was king. When his wife came to visit, he asked his servants who she was and ordered them to take care of what she required so that she would leave him alone. During an episode of 1395-1396, he claimed that his name was George and that his coat of arms was a lion with a sword thrust through it. At this time, he recognized all the officers of his household but did not know his wife or his children. Sometimes he ran wildly through the corridors of his Parisian residence, the Hôtel Saint-Pol, and to keep him inside, the entrances were walled up. In 1405, he refused to bathe or change his clothes for five months… [link]
From the map, you can see that the battle became famous because the archers took the day – technology and strategy over numbers. But this new data changes things only slightly. The English still won. The Archers were still heros. But the "out-numbered" part appears to be more like the stories of modern Bass Angler than focused on historical accuracy. Back then they had crazy leaders, wars of conquest that drug on and on, embellished and distorted battlefield stories, long range killing technology, and religious martyrs [Jeanne d’Arc]. I’ll bet they even tortured their prisoners. We’ve come a long way in 600 years…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.