Talk:Battle of Agincourt/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Frenchman obviously wrote it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Siege of Harfleur length 

message: 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)
I've just pulled the word 'skilfully' from "The Campaign" section relating to d'Albret's activities as this is a value judgement and it is unverifiable at present. If the author wants to put it back in with some citations of historians who support this contetion I don't have a problem with that. Cheers, --Leau 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of minor change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delbruck's account 

message: The article currently states that one purpose of Henry's campaign was to capture French noblemen, "either for ransom or to extort money from the French king in exchange for their return."  It seems to me that these are two ways of saying the same thing. This should be corrected by someone who thinks he or she knows the writer's actual meaning. I'd also like to see some supporting evidence for the notion that this was one of King Henry's personal motives, rather than just an incentive for his army. pmr 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not ransom? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another fact 

message: 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)
replies: text: Even if palings were not used at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), this hardly proves that they were an innovation at Agincourt (1415).  What about all the intervening battles? pmr 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency regarding the use of palings at the Battle of Crecy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lack of sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anecdote about Henry V 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bowshot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sir Peers Legh and his dog 

message: 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)
thread_title:  5000 prisoners massacred by the English 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern reassessment section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image of battle formation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reaching consensus on where we should put the fact a significant proportion of the "English" army was Welsh 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: First of all, please change the name in the title ! It's AZINCOURT, not Agincourt. Marc Fortier-Beaulieu. France.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.44.33 (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azincourt, not Agincourt. 

message: 86.20.45.15 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh, not English, longbows 

message: I always thought that the battle opened with Genoese crossbowmen advancing and firing at the English line,only to be driven back by the faster firing rate of the English archers. The crossbowmen retreated and were slaughter by the first French division because they were thought cowards for retreating - but this is not mentioned in the account given  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.68.19 (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're thinking of the Battle of Crecy. --Merlinme 09:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening of the Battle 

message: Given that, as I understand it, the battle was fought at Agincourt because the French were blocking the English route to Calais, is it really sensible to talk about Henry's choice of terrain? Other than not trying to go round the French, and perhaps moving his men forward slightly, it's unclear to me that he chose the position of the battle at all. The battle was fought pretty much where the French chose to fight it. --Merlinme 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just using rhetoric. If you can explain how Henry chose the terrain, then we can talk about putting it back in. --Merlinme (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hibbert could be cited here, although he doesn't really support the contention, and certainly not the somewhat extravagant wording. It's more a case of Henry making the the best tactical deployment given the topography with which he was presented. He writes: "During the night Henry had sent some of his knights forward to survey the field and he had already decided how best to make use of its advantages". The "constricted position adopted by the French" had been decided already, through lack of foresight on their part. On the whole, deletion seems best. --Old Moonraker 11:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Henry's inspired choice of position" 

message: I just added a little bit about the condition of English forces to the Situation section. The article contains little to no information on the "nitty-gritty" of battle. The physical, mental and spiritual condition of the combatants are important factors in any combat. PRSturm (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit: Situation 

message: Just watched the Agincourt Documentary on the ABC Australia 17 Jan 2008, stated it had new first hand evidence to back up story, included the 2 finger salute as happening, is this so?
Does anyone know who produced this doucumentary and when?
David 59.100.146.249 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know anything about the documentary I'm afraid. I'd be very impressed if they had new evidence about the V sign though. I thought that had been gone over exhaustively. There aren't that many sources. Froissart is the only credible one I'm aware of that it might have been done at Agincourt; and as far as I'm aware he specifies neither which fingers nor that archers were giving the sign. --Merlinme (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agincourt Documentary on the ABC Australia 17 Jan 2008 

message: Agincourt Documentary shown on the ABC Australia
Production Details:
A Juniper/ARTE France/Gedeon Programmes co-production for Channel Four
Television Corporation. Executive Producer Samir Shah, Film Editor Mike
Burton and narrated by Jamie Glover.
I dont know what year it was produced.
Davidphant (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Link --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agincourt Documentary 

message: The historical revisionism regarding numbers on each side of the battle still refers to figures that cannot be confirmed therefore they should not be there, plain and simple.
Not one single international authority on the Battle Of Agincourt agrees with Curry's claim, because that is the reality the piece does not belong and should be removed, or is wikipedia starting to give prominence also to authors who deny the holocaust to suit their personal belief system?
Also, perhaps someone could explain to me why the French [according to Curry] decided to grossly over-estimate the size of their own forces and shrink the English numbers to further increase their most-hated enemies victory even more?
Oh wait, its because they didn't have research computers, google or live in modern times, of course that must be it.
Twobells (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? You're seriously comparing a book by one of the acknowledged experts on the subject to holocaust denial? Curry's figures are disputed, but they're still worth discussing. What are you suggesting instead- that we go with the 36,000 figure? I personally think Curry's figures are probably about right for the professional army, but what's not clear is how many men were sent by the towns etc. --Merlinme (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I really don't understand what you're trying to get at with the bit about research computers, by the way. On the point of why the French would exaggerate their own disaster, I've puzzled over that as well. I guess if you're going to have a disaster, it might as well be a disaster of biblical proportions? People tend to routinely overestimate the size of crowds anyway though. It's noticeable that the French seem to have grossly overestimated the size of the English army. Incidentally, do you have references for the other "authoritative" French figures you mentioned in one of your edits? If you do, I'd be curious to know what they said. --Merlinme (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you please engage in a discussion as to why reporting the conclusions of one of the two significant books to be published in the last few years re: Agincourt is either Original Research or not NPOV? Until you make some sort of argument, I don't see any reason to keep the tags, so I'm removing them. Curry's argument has a very solid factual base, i.e. the original pay records for the French and English armies. Where this is dubious is assuming that the records were up-to-date and complete; but to say her theory has "no factual base" is simply incorrect. Regarding the numbers of the two sides, 3-1 is actually the lowest given by an eyewitness; of the other two eyewitnesses, one gives 6-1 and one gives 10-1. Given that the numbers given don't really add up (50,000 vs. over 10,000 is not 6-1, for example), it's debatable whether the eyewitnesses really meant to give exact figures, as opposed to saying "The English were outnumbered by several times". -Merlinme (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with the article as it currently stands, i.e. making it clear that Curry contradicts other Agincourt historians. I'm afraid I don't think putting this in bold qualifies for NPOV though! The following paragraphs quote some other historians, notably Barker's reaction to Curry's book. The (large) section on the primary sources also gives plenty of material for people who are interested, so I think people can make up their own minds. I've added a couple of extra bits to this section, notably to "analysis" section, where I've quoted Barker as saying the documentary sources are incomplete. Please suggest any other improvements you'd like (or just go ahead and make the edits and others can modify if they disagree). --Merlinme (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes- but that doesn't mean Curry is right, either. It means we don't know. Until Curry's work has been analysed in depth (which will probably take another ten years; it might take thirty years), all we can do is reflect the controversy. --Merlinme (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute stamp 

message: I can't find any sources detailing the actual campaign leading to Agincourt. Everything I read seems to concentrate on either Harfleur, the crossing of the Somme, or Agincourt. Can anyone tell me, did the English siege any French towns (other than Harfleur) during the Agincourt Campaign? LoreTj (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware the siege of Harfleur followed by heading for Calais (which led to crossing the Somme and Agincourt) pretty much was the entire campaign. --Merlinme (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The camapign started with the landing of the army, August 13. Then, the siege of Harfleur until October 22. The king left a garrison there, sent home by sea sicks and wounded and departed towards Calais on October 8. On the march the army found several fortified cities, like Arques and Eu, but they were not taken or besieged, instead instead the inhabitants netiated deals in which they were preserved from English attacks in exchange for victuals. The battle was fought on pOctober 25, the army then marched to Calais, were it was disbanded on November 23. That had been already prearranged before the campaign had started, as the army was paid up to that date.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Campaign 

message: See Archive 1: The Campaign for previous discussion.
"The English had very little food, had marched 260 miles in two-and-a-half weeks, ..."
Should that perhaps be 260 KM? The distance from Le Havre to Calais is shown as 200 KM.
Freeman2001 (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you allowing for the detour up the Somme in search of a crossing?  Blanchetaque and Agincourt are about 30 miles apart but the English army covered over a hundred miles between the two Monstrelet (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Campaign 

message: The section giving the details of the engagement is sometimes repetitious, and jumps back and forth in time and point of view (English perspective vs. French perspective) so often that it is hard to tell which statements apply to which side.  Also, the quality of the prose is not quite up to encyclopedia standards.
24.59.0.76 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please improve it. --Merlinme (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The account of the battle is confusing